GNOSTIC   HEEESIES 


By  the  same  Author. 


LETTERS,  LECTUEES,  AND  REVIEWS; 

including  the  PHRONTISTERION,  or    OXFORD    in    the 
NINETEENTH  CENTURY.     8vo.  125. 

THE    LIMITS   OF    RELIGIOUS   THOUGHT 

EXAMINED.     Fifth  Edition.    Post  Svo.  8s.  6d. 


THE 

•GNOSTIC  HERESIES' 

OF    THE 

FIRST  AND   SECOND  CENTURIES 


BY    THE    LATE 


HENRY    LONGUEVILLE    HANSEL,    D.D. 

DEAN    OF    ST.   PAUL'S 
SOMETIMK   PliOFESSOK    OF   ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY   AT   OXFORD 


WITH    A     SKETCH    OF    HIS     WORK,     LIFE,    AND     CHARACTER 

BY   THE   EARL   OF   CARNARVON 


EDITED 

BY  J.  B.  LIGHTFOOT, 

CANON    OF    ST.  PAUL'S 


LONDON 
JOHN     MURRAY,    ALBEMARLE     STREET 


All     rights 


LONDON   :     PHINTED    BY 

SPOTTISYVOODE    AND    CO.,    NEW-STREET    SQUARE 
AND     PARLIAMENT     STREET 


INTEODUCTION. 


AT  the  request  of  some  common  friends,  I  have 
endeavoured  to  put  upon  paper  some  few  recollections 
of  the  late  Dean  MANSEL.  I  do  not  pretend  to  write 
a  memoir  of  his  life ;  my  principal,  and  indeed  my 
only,  object  in  this  letter  is  to  retrace  the  impres- 
sions which  many  years  of  close  friendship  and  un- 
restrained intercourse  have  left  on  my  mind  ;  and  if, 
indeed,  I  have  occasionally  diverged  into  the  public 
side  of  his  character,  it  has  been  because  I  knew  him 
so  well  in  every  aspect  and  relation  of  life,  that  I  have 
found  it  difficult  to  confine  myself  to  that  with  which 
I  feel  I  am  and  ought  to  be  here  mainly  concerned. 

My  first  acquaintance  with  Dean  Mansel  was 
made  twenty  years  ago  at  the  University,  when  he 
had  everything  to  give,  and  I  had  everything  to 
receive.  As  I  think  of  him,  his  likeness  seems  to 
rise  before  me.  In  one  of  those  picturesque  and 
old-world  colleges,  in  rooms  which,  if  I  remember 
rightly,  on  one  side  looked  upon  the  collegiate  quad- 
rangle with  its  sober  and  meditative  architecture,  and 
on  the  other  caught  the  play  of  light  and  shade  cast 


vi  1 NTR  OD  UCTION. 

by  trees  almost  as  venerable  on  the  garden  grass — in 
one  of  those  rooms,  whose  walls  were  built  up  to  the 
ceiling  with  books,  whic'h,  nevertheless,  overflowed 
on  the  floor,  and  were  piled  in  masses  of  disorderly 
order  upon  chairs  and  tables,  might  have  been  seen 
sitting  day  after  day  the  late  Dean,  then  my  private 
tutor,  and  the  most  successful  teacher  of  his  time  in 
the  University.  Young  men  are  no  bad  judges  of  the 
capabilities  of  a  teacher ;  and  those  who  sought  the 
highest  honours  of  the  University  in  the  Class  schools 
thought  themselves  fortunate  to  secure  instruction 
such  as  he  gave,  transparently  lucid,  accurate,  and 
without  stint,  flowing  on  through  the  whole  morning 
continuously,  making  the  most  complicated  questions 
clear. 

But  if,  as  chanced  sometimes  with  me,  they 
returned  later  as  guests  in  the  winter  evening  to  the 
cheery  and  old-fashioned  hospitality  of  the  Common 
Room,  they  might  have  seen  the  same  man,  the 
centre  of  conversation,  full  of  anecdote  and  humour 
and  wit,  applying  the  resources  of  a  prodigious 
memory  and  keen  intellect  to  the  genial  intercourse 
of  society. 

The  life  of  old  Oxford  has  nearly  passed  away. 
New  ideas  are  now  accepted,  old  traditions  almost 
cease  to  have  a  part  in  the  existence  of  the  place,  the 
very  studies  have  greatly  changed,  and — whether  for 
good  or  evil — except  for  the  grey  walls  which  seem 
to  upbraid  the  altered  conditions  of  thought  around 
them,  Oxford  bids  fair  to  represent  modern  Liberal- 
ism, rather  than  the  Church  and  State  doctrines  of 


INTRODUCTION.  vii 

the  early  part  of  the  century.  But  of  that  earlier 
creed,  which  was  one  characteristic  of  the  University, 
Dean  Mansel  was  an  eminent  type.  Looked  up  to 
and  trusted  by  his  friends,  he  was  viewed  by  his 
opponents  as  worthy  of  their  highest  antagonism, 
and  whilst  he  reflected  the  qualities  which  the  lovers 
of  an  older  system  have  delighted  to  honour,  he 
freely  expressed  opinions  which  modern  reformers 
select  for  their  strongest  condemnation.  The  lines 
of  that  character  were  not  traced  in  sand.  They 
were  graven  in  the  very  nature  of  the  man,  part  of 
himself,  and  often  influencing  the  mind  of  those  with 
whom  he  came  in  contact. 

Such  he  was  when  I  first  knew  him  twenty  years 
ago — in  the  zenith  of  his  teaching  reputation,  though 
on  the  point  of  withdrawing  himself  from  it  to  a 
career  even  more  worthy  of  his  great  abilities.  It 
was  then  that  I  formed  an  acquaintance  which  ripened 
into  deep  and  sincere  friendship,  which  grew  closer 
and  more  valued  as  life  went  oiv  over  which  no 
shadow  of  variation  ever  passed,  and  which  was 
abruptly  snapped  at  the  very  time  when  it  had  become 
most  highly  prized. 

Dean  Hansel's  mind  was  one  of  the  highest  order. 
Its  greatness  perhaps,  as  was  truly  said  by  Canon 
Liddon,  was  not  such  as  best  commands  immediate 
popular  recognition  or  sympathy,  but  it  was  not 
on  that  account  the  less  powerful.  The  intellect 
was  of  such  a  kind  that  some  may  have  failed  to  ap- 
preciate it,  and  to  understand  that  they  4  were  close  to 
a  mind — almost  the  only  mind  in  England — to  which 


viii  INTRODUCTION. 

all  the  heights  and  all  the  depths  of  the  most  recent 

speculation   respecting  the  highest  truth  that  can  be 

grasped  by  the  human  understanding  were  perfectly 

familiar  ; '    but   now   that    death    has   intervened,  a 

truer  estimate,  as  so  often  happens,  is  possible  ;  and 

both  by  those  who  knew  him  personally,  and  by  those 

who  can  only  know  him  in  his  writings,  his  very 

great  power  will  perhaps  be  more  fully  acknowledged. 

I  do  not  mean  that  his  remarkable  capacity  was  or 

could  be  ignored.     The  honours  that  he  had  gained, 

and  the  position  that  he  had  achieved,  would  alone 

have  rendered  this  impossible ;  and  at  Oxford  there 

was  no  misapprehension,  on  this  point,  as  to  the  man. 

There  the  wide  range  of  his  mind  and  attainments 

was  correctly  appreciated;  but  the  outer  world  knew 

him  chiefly   as   a   great  metaphysical  thinker,    and 

perhaps   only  a   minority    even   of  those   few    who 

have  an  acquaintance  with  metaphysical  studies  rated 

him  at  his  true  standard.     Of  his  consummate  gifts 

in  the  province 'of  metaphysics   none,    indeed,   but 

a  professed  metaphysician  can  with  propriety  speak  ; 

yet   this   an   outsider   and   an   old   pupil   may   say 

— that   for  clear   thought,  full   knowledge,    and   an 

unsurpassed  gift  of  expression — qualities  which  give 

especial    value   to    this   branch   of    study — he    was 

second    to    none.       So    singularly    lucid    was    the 

language   in  which   difficult   and   involved  subjects 

were  presented  by  him  to  the  reader  or  hearer,  that 

none  had  the  excuse  that  Bishop  Butler-  modestly 

suggests  to  those  who  may  be  perplexed  with  the 

hardness  of  style  which  is  to  be  found  in  his  own 


INTR  OD  UCTION.  ix 

masterly  works.  If,  indeed,  from  a  different  point  of 
view,  Dean  Hansel's  writings  were  open  to  criticism, 
it  was  that  this  extreme  lucidity  and  force  of 
expression  were  such  that  in  literary  controversy  he 
sometimes  dealt  out  to  his  opponents  heavier  blows 
than  he  possibly  intended.  One  of  his  antagonists, 
worthy  of  all  respect — and  all  the  more  that,  like 
Dean  Mansel,  he  has  passed  away  from  the  arena  of 
earthly  controversy  to  a  scene  where  those  higher 
questions  of  a  future  life  on  which  he  sometimes  dwelt 
are  now  all  solved — has  left  a  proof  of  his  candour 
and  truthfulness  in  the  admission  that,  although  still 
adhering  to  his  own  view  of  a  particular  subject  under 
dispute,  he  was  overmatched  by  the  Dean  in  the  actual 
dialectics  of  debate.  It  often  occurred  to  me  that  his 
possession  of  this  singularly  transparent  style,  when 
dealing  with  the  most  abstract  and  complicated 
questions,  was  in  a  great  measure  due  to  a  perfect 
familiarity  with  classical  literature.  He  sought  and 
mastered  it  in  early  life,  and,  unlike  many  who  are 
inclined  to  disparage,  for  more  modern  studies,  the 
learning  which  for  so  many  generations  gave  to  the 
world  its  greatest  minds  and  its  most  humanising  gifts, 
he  followed  and  delighted  in  it  to  the  last.  And, 
like  a  grateful  mistress,  classical  learning  rewarded 
his  devotion  with  that  style  and  skill  of  fence  which 
lent  him  so  formidable  a  superiority  in  the  literary 
warfare  of  theological  discussion. 

Nowhere  was  this  more  conspicuous  than  in  the 
now  famous  Bampton  Lectures  on  the  '  Limits  of  Re- 
ligious Thought,'  which  he  preached  in  1858.  But 


x  INTRODUCTION. 

for  him  those  lectures  had  a  yet  greater  importance. 
They  were  a  new  point  of  departure,  and,  in  a 
somewhat  wider  sense,  the  beginning  of  his  public 
life.  From  the  pulpit  of  St.  Mary's  he  stepped  at 
once  into  the  foremost  rank  of  modern  theological 
writers ;  and  the  classical  tutor,  the  professor  of 
moral  philosophy,  however  eminent  locally,  became 
at  once  a  power  in,  and  even  beyond,  the  walls  of  the 
University.  From  this  time  he  wielded  an  influence 
which  he  never  lost,  and  which,  had  he  lived,  he 
would,  I  believe,  have  largely  increased.  But  those 
lectures  were  its  origin.  They  passed  through 
several  editions,  they  were  repeatedly  reviewed  and 
canvassed,  and  they  became  almost  a  text-book  in 
the  schools  of  the  University.  They  had  as  readers 
alike  those  who  could  appreciate,  and  those  who  were 
incapable  of  apprehending,  the  reasoning ;  they  be- 
came the  subject  both  of  an  understanding  and  of 
an  unintelligent  discussion  ;  until  at  last  some  one 
was  found  who  from  impatience  of  argument,  or  from 
love  of  paradox,  or  from  jealousy  of  the  logical  limits 
assigned  to  the  liberty  of  human  thought,  declared 
that  he  had  discovered  a  latent  heresy  in  a  chain  of 
reasoning  which  to  the  great  majority  of  men  seemed 
orthodox  and  plain  enough.  But  the  ingenuity  of 
a  somewhat  perverse  reasoning  was  attractive,  and  so 
others — often  but  little  qualified  to  form  a  judgment 
on  such  a  subject — not  only  accepted  on  trust  the 
statement,  but  repeated  it  in  every  exaggerated  form 
of  expression. 

It  would  be  entirely  beyond  my  meaning  were  I 


INTRODUCTION.  xi 

to  enter  in  any  way  upon  such  a  controversy.  Yet 
I  will  venture  to  assert  that,  when  these  criticisms 
have  passed  away  and  are  almost  forgotten,  the 
lectures  will  remain  amongst  those  monuments  of 
theological  argument  which  it  is  the  boast  of  the 
University  to  have  raised  up  for  the  guidance  of  her 
children  in  defence  of  the  truth.  Certainly  those  who 
knew  the  sincere  piety  and  devoted  orthodoxy  of  the 
lecturer  were  aware  how  little  there  was  in  the 
personal  character  of  the  man  to  lend  confirmation  to 
the  charge. 

1 .  do  not  think  that  Dean  Mansel  would  have 
desired  to  be  spared  the  free  comments  of  those  who 
differed  from  him.  His  character  was  in  this  respect 
so  robust  and  fearless,  and  he  had  such  well-founded 
confidence  in  his  mental  powers  of  self-defence,  that 
he  was  the  last  man  to  shrink  from  the  challenge  of 
a  fair  fight.  But  it  is  remarkable  to  observe  how 
before  his  death — through  the  gradual  recognition  of 
his  great  powers — he  had  almost  lived  down  the  ad- 
verse, if  not  unfriendly,  criticisms  of  an  earlier  period, 
and  to  compare  the  public  estimate  of  his  fitness 
for  the  Chair  of  Ecclesiastical  History  and  for  the 
Deanery  of  St.  Paul's.  When,  indeed,  the  honours  and 
responsibilities  of  this  first  office  came  to  him,  some 
cavils  and  questions  were  suggested ;  and,  though  no 
one  could  venture  to  allege  in  such  a  man  unfitness  for 
the  office,  it  was  hinted  that  political  and  undiscrinii- 
nating  favour  had  placed  him  in  a  sphere  which  was 
less  than  congenial  to  his  ordinary  habits  of  study. 
There  was  so  far  doubtless  the  semblance  of  fact  in 


xii  INTRODUCTION. 

this  allegation  that  Dean  Mansel's  literary  work  had 
followed  the  line  of  abstract  rather  than  historical 
study.  But  his  earlier  if  not  his  earliest  predilections, 
as  those  who  knew  him  best  were  aware,  inclined  to 
a  theological  rather  than  a  philosophical  course  of 
study.  Philosophy  was,  I  think,  in  his  eyes  the  com- 
panion of  theology;  and,  though  the  accidents  of  his 
literary  life  gave  a  predominance  to  the  philosophical 
side,  the  theological  inclination  remained  undisturbed. 
Thus,  if  any  there  were  who  hoped  or  thought  to  trace 
a  flaw  or  an  inequality  of  power  in  this  to  him  com- 
paratively new  field  of  labour,  they  were  disappointed. 
No  really  weak  point  in  the  harness  could  be  detected ; 
and  I  believe  that  it  will  be  generally  as  it  was  then 
locally  admitted,  that  his  vigour,  knowledge,  and 
logical  capacity  were  as  eminent  here  as  they  were 
elsewhere.  It  is  perhaps  an  evidence  of  his  singular 
ability  that  whilst  few  men  in  such  circumstances 
as  his  have  more  frequently  or  fearlessly  laid  them- 
selves open  to  criticism,  none  came  off  more  un- 
scathed by  the  attacks  which  those  who  descend 
into  the  arena  of  polemical  controversy  must  expect 
to  meet.  But  perhaps  the  secret  of  his  almost  un- 
varied success  lay  in  this,  that  he  never  undertook 
what  he  could  not  do,  and  thus  never  failed  to  do 
what  he  undertook. 

Dean  Mansel  did  not  long  hold  the  Chair  of 
Ecclesiastical  History.  He  held  it,  indeed,  barely 
long  enough  to  justify  the  choice  made  of  him  ;  but 
his  lectures  on  the  Gnostic  heresies  of  the  early 
centuries,  of  which,  fortunately,  the  MS.  notes  re- 


INTRODUCTION.  xiii 

main  and  form  the  volume,  in  which  it  is  desired 
to  include  this  short  notice  of  him,  furnish  some 
illustration  of  the  power  which  he  brought  to  bear 
in  the  discharge  of  his  task.  The  events  of  his 
later  life  are  crowded  into  a  narrow  compass.  He 
had  been  appointed  by  the  Crown  to  the  Professor- 
ship of  Ecclesiastical  History  on  the  advice  of  Lord 
Derby;  he  was  transferred  from  it  on  the  nomina- 
tion of  Mr.  Disraeli,  Lord  Derby's  successor,  to  the 
Deanery  of  St.  Paul's.  By  this  time  his  powers  were 
so  fully  recognised  that  criticism  itself  was  silent,  and 
from  all  parties  and  individuals  there  was  an  acknow- 
ledgment that  no  better  man  could  have  been  selected. 
He  addressed  himself  with  all  the  vigour  of  his 
character  to  the  work  which  lay  before  him.  The 
commutation  of  the  estates  belonging  to  St.  Paul's 
Cathedral  had  to  be  carried  through,  and  it  was,  I 
believe,  by  the  laborious  and  minute  calculations  into 
which  he  entered  that  the  bases  of  the  present  arrange- 
ments were  laid.  But  whilst  the  best  part  of  his  day 
was  devoted  to  these  public  duties,  all  available  leisure 
was  still  given,  as  formerly,  to  the  work  of  the  student 
and  the  scholar,  in  which  his  real  nature  was  centered. 
Time  was  not,  indeed,  allowed  to  enable  him  to  give 
to  the  world  one  of  those  great  philosophical  works  in 
defence  of  the  principles  of  religious  faith  which  his 
friends  expected,  which  perhaps  he  meditated,  and  to 
which  none  could  have  done  more  justice  than  him- 
self ;  but,  during  the  short  interval  that  remained,  he 
nearly  performed  the  part  which  he  had  undertaken 
in  '  the  Speaker's  Bible,'  and  he  completed  within  the 


xiv  INTRODUCTION. 

last  two  chapters  his  commentary  on  the  Gospel  of  St. 
Matthew. 

But  there  were  other  public  duties  which  his  new 
position  entailed  upon  him  ;  and  they  were  not  alto- 
gether easy ;  for  in  the  Deanery  of  St.  Paul's  he 
succeeded  one  who  was  as  eminent  in  letters  as  he  was 
deservedly  popular  in  general  society.  And  his  time 
was  very  short.  Little  more  than  one  year  of  life 
remained  ;  yet  in  that  year  he  made  a  probably  lasting 
mark,  and  he  gave  a  great  impulse  to  a  work  which 
others  must  carry  to  completion. 

Of  all  the  many  architectural  restorations  which 
taste  and  devotional  feeling  have  dictated  to  this  gene- 
ration, none  can  be  the  subject  of  a  heartier  and  more 
undivided  agreement  than  the  revival  of  the  Metro- 
politan Cathedral  for  its  religious  uses.  The  most 
sensitive  of  critics  will  not  easily  discover  an  objection 
to  such  a  work  ;  the  coldest  cannot  see  unmoved  the 
crowd  of  men  and  women  gathered  on  some  Sunday 
evening  under  that  airy  dome — the  forest  of  up- 
turned faces  directed  to  the  preacher,  who  sways  at 
will  an  audience  of  thousands  drawn  together  from 
the  busiest,  wealthiest,  most  cultivated,  and  varied 
capital  of  the  world.  But  the  spectacle,  grand  as  it 
is,  is  full  of  inequalities  and  contrasts.  The  great 
Cathedral,  indeed — rebuilt  by  Wren  after  the  Fire  of 
London,  and  the  masterpiece  of  his  genius — bears 
comparison  with  the  stateliest  churches  of  other 
countries,  but  bears  comparison  only  in  its  outlines 
and  general  proportions.  Without,  it  is  a  pile  of 
most  noble  parts  and  lofty  conceptions  :  within,  the 


INTRODUCTION.          ,  xv 

bare  walls,  naked  of  the  enrichment  and  ornament 
which  the  architect  designed,  chill  the  rising  enthu- 
siasm, while  the  fantastic  cenotaphs  and  tasteless 
monuments  that  are  grouped  along  the  aisles  mock 
the  glorious  span  and  the  ascending  lines  of  the  dome. 
Since  Wren's  death  little  or  nothing  had  been  done 
towards  the  completion  of  his  great  work ;  but  the 
desire  had  not  been  wanting.  Dean  Hansel's  able 
and  cultivated  predecessor  had  expressed  himself  ten 
or  twelve  years  previously  in  a  letter,  which  has 
been  incorporated  in  his  c  Annals  of  St.  Paul's,'  as 
follows  : — 

c  I  should  wish  to  see  such  decorations  introduced 
into  St.  Paul's  as  may  give  some  splendour,  while 
they  would  not  disturb  the  solemnity  or  the  ex- 
quisitely harmonious  simplicity  of  the  edifice  ;  some 
colour  to  enliven  and  gladden  the  eye,  from  foreign 
or  native  marbles,  the  most  permanent  and  safe  modes 
of  embellishing  a  building  exposed  to  the  atmosphere 
of  London.  I  would  see  the  dome,  instead  of  brood- 
ing like  a  dead  weight  over  the  area  below,  expand- 
ing and  elevating  the  soul  towards  heaven.  I  would 
see  the  sullen  •  white  of  the  roof,  the  arches,  the 
cornices,  the  capitals,  and  the  walls  broken  and  re- 
lieved by  gilding,  as  we  find  it  by  experience  the 
most  lasting  as  well  as  the  most  appropriate  decora- 
tion. I  would  see  the  adornment  carried  out  in  a 
rich  but  harmonious  (and  as  far  as  possible  from 
gaudy)  style  in  unison  with  our  simpler  form  of 
worship.' 

These  words,  which  deserve  to  be  rescued  from 


xvi  .  INTRODUCTION. 

the  oblivion  of  an  appendix,  and  which  are  worthy 
of  the  learned  and  accomplished  man  who  wrote  them, 
seem  equally  to  represent  the  feelings  of  Dean  Mansel, 
and  recall  to  me  not  only  the  anxiety  with  which  his 
mind  was  set  upon  the  task  of  embellishment  and  com- 
pletion, but  almost  the  words  in  which  he  often  spoke 
to  me  of  it.  The  great  meeting  which  through  his 
means  was  convened  at  the  Mansion  House,  and  the 
large  contributions  that  at  once  flowed  in,  were  an 
earnest  of  the  probable  success  of  the  undertaking, 
which,  large  as  it  undoubtedly  was,  had  yet  been 
fully  measured  beforehand  in  his  mind.  But,  unhap- 
pily, hostilities  between  France  and  Germany  broke 
out,  money  was  needed  for  other  purposes,  and 
the  designs  and  arts  of  peace  were  swept  away  into 
the  bottomless  pit  of  an  all-absorbing  war.  Still,  in 
spite  of  the  difficulties  which  a  vast  Continental 
struggle  created,  the  work  advanced,  though  slowly. 
A  committee,  consisting  of  men  of  very  various 
attainments,  pursuits,  and  views,  had  been  brought 
together,  and  under  the  Dean's  guidance  and  good 
sense  they  had  entered  upon  large  improvements. 

Differences  were  being  smoothed,  difficulties  were 
being  overcome,  when,  in  the  midst  of  scheme  and 
purpose,  in  the  full  vigour  of  ripe  intellect,  in  the 
midst  also  of  the  domestic  repose  which  a  singularly 
happy  marriage  had  conferred  upon  him,  death  came 
suddenly  like  a  thief  in  the  night,  and  in  one  moment 
of  time  arrested  for  ever  the  active  brain,  and  closed 
the  career  of  administrative  power  and  promise. 

Others  have  succeeded  to  him.     They  have  taken 


INTROD  UCTION.  xvii 

up  the  work  as  it  fell  from  his  hands  :  it  is  to  be 
hoped  that  they  may  continue  it  in  a  manner  and 
spirit  worthy  of  its  commencement. 

These  were  the  public  duties  to  which  the  last 
few  years  of  Dean  Hansel's  life  were  devoted  with  a 
singleness  and  completeness  of  purpose  that  those 
only  who  knew  him  can  fairly  estimate  ;  but  there 
was  also  a  private  side  of  his  character  which  the 
outside  world  perhaps  hardly  suspected. 

His  range  both  of  reading  and  of  observation  was 
very  large,  and  it  was  perpetually  widening  under 
the  desire  to  know  more.  To  him  the  words  which 
were  once  spoken  of  a  great  writer  might  perhaps 
not  unfairly  be  applied — 

His  learning  such,  no  author  old  or  new 
Escaped  his  reading  that  deserved  his  view, 
And  such  his  judgment,  so  exact  his  test 
Of  what  was  best  in  books,  as  what  books  best — 

so  readily  did  his  mind  embrace  each  new  subject  of 
interest,  foreign  though  it  might  be  supposed  to  be 
to  his  ordinary  habits  of  life  and  study.  As  fast  as 
he  came  in  contact  with  new  information  or  ideas 
he  took  them  in  and  assimilated  them  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  have  them  at  command.  Every  fact, 
every  illustration,  was  available  for  its  purpose,  every 
argument  was  duly  marshalled  under  its  respective 
principle.  I  cannot  recall  an  intellect  more  solid, 
compact,  and  balanced,  or  where  everything  was,  so 
to  speak,  more  in  its  place,  and  more  susceptible  of 
immediate  employment.  This  was  doubtless  due  to 

a  large  combination  of  qualities ;  to  abilities  of  a  very 

a 


xviii  INTRODUCTION. 

high  order,  to  learning,  accuracy,  careful  cultivation 
and  self-discipline,  with  no  inconsiderable  play  of  the 
imaginative  faculties,  which  lent  a  freshness  to  every 
subject  that  he  touched;  and,  lastly,  to  a  prodigious 
memory,  which  had  the  rare  gift  of  being  as  discrimi- 
nating as  it  was  powerful.  If  he  retained  with  abso- 
lute exactitude  things  great  and  small,  and  seemed 
never  to  forget  what  he  had  read  or  heard,  it  was 
that  all  those  facts  or  statements  were,  in  his  opinion, 
worth  remembering.  He  seemed,  moreover — which 
is  very  rare  with  such  memories — to  be  able  to  reject 
the  useless  matter  which  forms  so  large  a  portion  of 
every  subject,  whilst  he  made  absolutely  his  own 
everything  that  he  might  hereafter  need.  Lord 
Macaulay  once  told  me  that  with  a  little  effort  he 
could  recall  all  the  Latin  themes  and  verses  which  he 
had  written  since  the  age  of  twelve  or  thirteen,  and 
he  implied,  if  he  did  not  actually  say,  that  there  was 
a  burden  as  well  as  a  delight  in  such  a  marvellous 
power.  Dean  Hansel's  mind,  though  singularly  re- 
tentive, was  not,  as  I  have  said,  of  this  kind  ;  nor 
was  it  one  of  those  very  rapid  memories  which  are 
instinctive  and  instantaneous  in  their  operation  :  his 
mind  seemed  rather  to  go  through  a  sort  of  mechanical 
process  until  the  missing  fragment  for  which  he 
sought  was  recovered,  and — like  the  pattern  of  a  mo- 
saic pavement — was  recovered  perfect  in  all  its  details. 
But,  though  this  complete  precision  of  memory 
was  a  counterpart  of  the  exactness  of  his  logical 
faculty,  it  never  dried  up  in  him,  as  in  so  many 
persons,  the  sense  of  humour  or  the  springs  of  imagin- 


INTRODUCTION.  xix 

iition.  He  had  a  genuine  love  of  poetry,  to  which 
he  constantly  recurred ;  and,  though  he  treated  it 
only  as  a  pastime,  he  could  on  occasion  show  him- 
self a  graceful  writer  of  verse.  In.  the  '  Phrontiste- 
rion,'  a  squib  written  at  the  time  of  the  issue  of  the 
University  Commission — but  one  which  few  will  hesi- 
tate to  acknowledge  as  of  the  highest  literary  merit 
which  this  generation  has  produced,  and  worthy  to 
be  read  by  the  side  of  Frere's  Aristophanic  transla- 
tions— there  are  lines  not  only  remarkable  for  their 
wit,  but  of  very  noble  thought  and  expression.  And 
this  sense  of  humour  was  a  genuine  characteristic 
of  the  man.  His  conversation  was  full  of  it;  his 
private  letters  overflowed  with  it ;  he  had  an  inex- 
haustible reserve  at  command  for  every  occasion,  and, 
it  may  be  added,  for  every  society.  And  yet  it  was 
always  lit  up  by  the  light  of  kindness;  it  ceased 
with  an  instinctive  and  immediate  sympathy  in  the 
presence  of  a  friend's  anxiety  or  sorrow  ;  and  if  ever 
the  edge  of  his  wit  was  for  the  moment  unduly 
sharpened,  as  in  controversy  may  have  happened,  it 
arose  rather  from  a  strong  sense  of  the  wrong  which 
he  thought  he  was  opposing,  than  from  any  personal 
antagonism  to  his  opponent.  He  was,  in  fact,  one  of 
the  truest,  steadiest,  and  most  warm-hearted  of  friends, 
never  varying  with  change  of  circumstance  or  lapse 
of  time ;  sometimes  even  with  an  amiable  inconsis- 
tency, reconciling  the  mistakes  or  shortcomings  of 
those  in  whom  he  was  warmly  interested,  to  a  stan- 
dard which  his  affection  or  regard  had  set  up. 

To  this  must  be  added — perhaps  from  this  in  a 

a  2 


xx  INTRODUCTION. 

certain   measure  proceeded — that  which  constituted 
one  of  the  great  charms  of  his  character,  a  perfect 
simplicity  of  feeling  and  taste.     No  amusement  was 
too  simple,  no  occupation  was  unworthy  of  him,  just 
as  he  considered  no  person  below  the  level  of  his  mind. 
He  would  come  down  to  the  dullest;  and  would  either 
learn  whatever  there  was  to  be  acquired,  or  would 
pour  out  the  abundant  stores  of  his  own  knowledge, 
without  a  thought  that  he  was  intellectually  conde- 
scending  to   one   less  competent   than   himself.      I 
remember,  during  part  of  a  summer  that  I  spent  with 
him  by  the  seaside,  his  characteristic  determination 
to  understand  the  method  of  sailing  a  boat,  and  the 
acuteness    with     which    he   resolved    the    practical 
details,   as  he  got  them  from  an  old  fisherman,  into 
the   more  scientific  principles   by   which  they  were 
really  governed.     I  remember,  on  another  occasion, 
the  keen  interest  with  which  he  learnt  from  a  game- 
keeper some   of  the  mysteries  of  his  craft   in   the 
rearing  of  birds;   and  though   Dean  Mansel  would 
never  have  become  a  good  pilot  or  gamekeeper,  yet 
this  keen  interest  in  the  occupations  of  others  kept  his 
own  mind  singularly  fresh  and  active.     Nor  was  this 
simplicity  confined   to  the  intellectual    side    of  his 
character.     He  was  morally  most  just  and  single  of 
purpose.     It  would  be  to  such  a  man  a  poor  compli- 
ment to  say  that  he  was  as  entirely  above  the  temp- 
tations of  profit  and  personal  interest,  and  as  incapable 
of  an  unworthy  act,  as  any  whom  I  have  ever  known. 
I  would  rather  say  that  he  was  one  whose  scrupulous 
conscientiousness  was  hard  to  satisfy,  and  in  whose 


INTRODUCTION.  xxi 

mind  the  conflicting  pretensions  of  duty  and  interest 
never  held  debate. 

In  politics  he,  like  many  others,  lived  too  late  for 
his  generation.  He  saw  the  decay  and  change  of 
ideas  and  institutions  which  were  precious  in  his 
eyes  ;  and,  though  he  resisted  it  to  the  utmost  of  his 
power,  he  watched  with  pain  the  revolution  of 
thought  that  has  carried  so  far  from  her  old  moorings 
the  University  which  had  been  long  his  home, 
and  with  which  his  earlier  life,  and  fortunes,  and 
affections  were  all  so  closely  intertwined.  It  can  be 
no  offence  to  any  one  to  say  that,  during  the  last  few 
years  of  his  residence  at  Oxford,  he  was  the  pillar 
and  centre  of  the  Conservative  cause.  By  wisdom  of 
counsel,  ability  of  speech,  fertility  of  resource,  he 
vindicated  it  in  the  eyes  of  the  outer  world,  and  gave 
it  at  once  strength  and  ornament ;  for  of  him,  in 
letters  at  least,  it  might  be  truly  said  that  he  touched 
no  subject  that  he  did  not  in  some  way  embellish  it. 
His  Liberal  opponents  knew  it,  and  have  left  it  on 
record  that,  when  he  was  transferred  from  the  Chair 
of  Ecclesiastical  History  to  St.  Paul's,  the  ablest  head 
had  been  taken  away  from  the  Conservative  party. 
I  have,  indeed,  heard  some  who  knew  Dean  Mansel 
very  slightly,  say  or  imply  that  in  the  affairs  of  public 
life,  where  conciliation  and  the  spirit  of  c  give  and 
take'  are  necessary,  he  was  of  a  somewhat  im- 
practicable disposition  ;  but  such  an  opinion  was 
incorrect.  His  contemporaries  were  perhaps  some- 
times misled  by  the  force  with  which  his  opinions 
were  expressed.  Nor  was  his  intellect  one  naturally 


xxii  1NTEOD  UCTION. 

favourable  to  compromise.  It  was  of  too  logical 
and  incisive  a  kind.  But  his  strong  common  sense 
and  his  keen  appreciation  of  the  course  of  events 
led  him  to  apply  the  strength  of  his  mind  to  any 
reasonable  compromise  which  had  a  chance  of  lasting ; 
and  thus,  though  practically  averse  from  change,  he 
was,  as  I  have  often  had  reason  to  observe  in  my 
intercourse  with  him,  always  moderate  in  counsel, 
and  anxious  for  expedients  to  reconcile  his  love  of 
the  Church  and  University  with  those  alterations  of 
public  or  Parliamentary  opinion,  to  which  he  was  not 
blind,  however  he  might  seem  to  shrink  from  the 
open  recognition  of  them.  His  Conservatism,  in 
short,  was  not  the  Conservatism  of  prejudice,  but  of 
individual  conviction,  founded  on  severe  thought, 
adorned  by  no  common  learning,  and  bound  up 
through  the  entire  course  of  his  life  with  the  prin- 
ciples of  his  religious  belief.  In  these  days — when 
fundamental  principles  are  raised  and  burning  ques- 
tions are  too  often  discussed  with  moderate  know- 
ledge, excessive  asperity,  and  sometimes  hysterical 
passion — that  fine  intellect,  ripe  learning,  and  even 
judgment  can  be  ill  spared  from  the  service  of  the 
Church.  And  if  I  often  have  cause  to  lament  the 
loss  of  a  private  friend,  there  is  still  greater  reason 
to  regret  from  the  wide  sphere  of  public  usefulness, 
and  especially  from  the  world  of  letters,  the  with- 
drawal of  one  whose  qualities  peculiarly  fitted  him 
for  the  work  of  his  time. 

CAENAEVON. 

September  25,  1874. 


PBEFACE. 


THE  course  of  Lectures  on  the  Gnostic  Heresies 
which  is  published  in  this  volume  was  delivered 
before  the  University  of  Oxford  by  Dr.  Mansel,  as 
Eegius  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  in  the 
Lent  Term  1868.  He  had  been  appointed  to  this 
chair  by  the  Crown  in  the  preceding  year,  having 
previously  held  the  "Waynflete  Professorship  of  Moral 
and  Metaphysical  Philosophy.  Some  regret  was  felt 
at  the  time  that  one  who  had  shown  himself  emi- 
nently competent  as  a  teacher  of  philosophy  should 
be  transferred  to  another  branch  of  study,  which  did 
not  seem  to  be  so  peculiarly  his  own.  These  lec- 
tures are  a  complete  answer  to  any  such  misgivings. 
There  were  extensive  provinces  of  Ecclesiastical 
History  —  more  especially  of  early  Ecclesiastical 
History — which  could  only  be  successfully  occupied 
by  one  who  had  a  familiar  acquaintance  with  ancient 
and  modern  philosophy.  To  these  provinces  more 
especially  Professor  Mansel  directed  his  attention  ; 
and  the  present  volume  is  one  of  the  fruits  of  a  very 
brief  but  energetic  professoriate. 


xxiv  PREFACE. 

I  do  not  think  that  I  need  offer  any  apology  for 
having  recommended  the  publication  of  these  lectures. 
The  student  will  be  grateful  for  the  guidance  of 
a  singularly  clear  and  well- trained  thinker  through 
the  mazes  of  this  intricate  subject.  Since  the  dis- 
covery of  the  work  of  Hippolytus,  which  has  added 
largely  to  the  materials  for  a  history  of  Gnosticism, 
English  literature  has  furnished  no  connected  ac- 
count of  this  important  chapter  in  the  progress  of 
religious  thought.  Indeed,  with  the  single  exception 
of  Lipsius'  elaborate  article  in  Ersch  and  Gruber, 
which  was  written  subsequently  to  this  discovery, 
all  the  French  and  German  works  (so  far  as  I  am 
aware),  which  treat  of  the  subject  as  a  whole,  labour 
under  the  same  defect.  Nor  again,  will  the  subject 
itself  stand  in  need  of  any  apology.  The  time  is 
gone  by  when  the  Gnostic  theories  could  be  regarded 
as  the  mere  ravings  of  religious  lunatics.  The  pro- 
blems which  taxed  the  powers  of  a  Basilides  and  a 
Valentmus  are  felt  to  be  among  the  most  profound 
and  most  difficult  which  can  occupy  the  human 
mind.  Even  the  Gnostic  solutions  of  these  problems 
are  not  altogether  out  of  date  in  the  second  half  of 
this  nineteenth  century,  as  the  dualistic  tendencies 
of  Mr.  John  Stuart  Mill's  posthumous  Three  Essays 
will  show.  At  such  a  time  an  exposition  of  the 
subject  from  a  distinctly  Christian  point  of  view, 
written  by  one  who  apprehended  with  singular  clear- 
ness the  gravity  of  the  issues  involved,  cannot  be 
regarded  as  otherwise  than  opportune.  It  is  only 
by  the  study  of  Gnostic  aberrations  that  the  true 


PREFACE.  xxv 

import  of  the  teaching  of  Catholic  Christianity,  in 
its  moral  as  well  as  its  theological  bearings,  can  be 
fully  appreciated. 

There  is  some  reason  for  believing  that  Dean 
Mansel  at  one  time  contemplated  the  publication  of 
these  lectures  ;  but,  if  so,  he  was  prevented  by 
pressure  of  other  work  from  fulfilling  his  intention. 
Had  he  lived  to  carry  out  this  design,  the  work 
would  doubtless  have  received  considerable  additions 
from  his  hands.  But  it  is  not  probable  that  in  any 
essential  points  he  would  have  found  it  necessary  to 
modify  his  opinions.  I  am  informed  by  those  who 
knew  him  best,  that  he  never  set  pen  to  paper  until 
he  had  thoroughly  worked  out  his  subject,  in  all  its 
main  points,  to  his  own  satisfaction  ;  and.  this  repre- 
sentation is  fully  borne  out  by  the  appearance  of  his 
manuscripts,  which  are  singularly  free  from  correc- 
tions. It  would  therefore  have  been  in  the  more 
finished  execution,  and  in  the  fuller  illustration,  that 
the  latest  hand  of  the  author  would  have  been  dis- 
cerned. But  this  want  did  not  seem  to  be  a  suffi- 
cient reason  for  withholding  the  lectures  from  the 
public. 

For  the  reason  indicated,  the  amount  of  labour 
which  has  fallen  to  my  share  has  been  much  less 
than  usually  devolves  on  the  editor  of  a  posthumous 
work.  With  the  exception  of  the  alteration  or  addi- 
tion of  a  word  here  and  there,  or  the  occasional 
transposition  of  a  clause  for  the  sake  of  clearness,  the 
lectures  are  printed  exactly  as  they  appear  in  the 
manuscript.  Any  attempt  to  supplement  them  with 


xxvi  PREFACE. 

matter  of  my  own  would  have  destroyed  the  unity 
of  the  work,  without  any  countervailing  advantage. 
In  the  verification  of  the  references  I  have  had  the 
assistance  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Baker,  Head  Master  of 
Merchant  Taylors7  School,  to  whom  my  sincere 
thanks  are  due  for  relieving  me  in  great  measure 
of  this  laborious  task  ;  and  for  the  preparation  of  the 
index  I  am  indebted  to  the  Rev.  JL  J.  Scott,  M.A., 
of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge.  Such  labour  as  I 
myself  have  bestowed  on  the  publication  of  these 
lectures  has  been  cheerfully  tendered  as  a  tribute 
of  respect  to  the  memory  of  one  from  whom,  during 
the  very  short  period  of  my  connection  with  him  as 
a  member  of  the  Chapter  of  St.  Paul's,  I  received 


nothing  but  kindness. 


TEINITT  COLLEGE,  CAMBRIDGE  : 
Christmas  1874. 


J.  B.  LlGHTFOOT. 


CONTENTS. 


LECTURE  I. 

INTRODUCTION. 

PAGE 

Meaning  of  term  Gnosis — Gnosticism  applied  in  actual  use  only  to 
perversions  of  Christianity— Idea  of  Kedemption  foreign  to  Greek 
philosophy — This  idea  the  distinctive  feature  of  Gnosticism — 
Indicates  its  partly  Christian  source — Language  adopted  from 
Christianity — Title  Gnostic — Distinction  between  true  and  false 
knowledge  by  St.  Paul ;  by  Clement  of  Alexandria — Gnostic 
estimate  of  the  relation  of  Christianity  to  Gnosticism— Gnostic  doc- 
trines of  Absolute  Existence  and  Origin  of  Evil — Destroy  per- 
sonality and  free-will — Hostile  to  Christianity — Lead  to  the  same 
conclusions  as  modern  Materialism 1-15 


LECTURE  II. 

SOURCES   OF   GNOSTICISM. 

Absolute  Existence  and  Origin  of  Evil  merged  into  one  problem  by 
the  Gnostics — Absolute  Existence  handed  down  to  them  from 
Plato — Philo — The  Logos — The  Powers — G-nostics  differ  from 
Philo  in  substituting  Christianity  for  Judaism — Judaizing  and 
Anti- Jewish  Gnostics — Origin  of  Evil,  in  Greek  Philosophy  little 
more  than  glanced  at — Eeason  of  this — In  the  East,  two  principal 
theories — Dualistic  or  Persian — Zoroaster — His  system — Kesem- 
blance  to  Mosaic  narrative — Influenced  by  intercourse  with  the 
Hebrews — The  Persian  theory  compared  with  the  Indian  or  Ema- 
nation theory — Brahmanism  and  Buddhism — Their  doctrines — 
Persian  influence  on  Gnosticism  in  Syria — Indian  influence  in  Egypt 
— Therapeutce — Conclusion,  three  principal  sources  of  Gnosticism  16-32 


xxviii  CONTENTS. 

LECTURE  III. 

SOURCES   OF   GNOSTICISM — CLASSIFICATION"  OF   GNOSTIC   SECTS. 

PAGE 

Sources  of  Gnosticism — The  Kabbala — Jewish  Metaphysics — Re- 
sembles the  philosophy  of  Spinoza — Its  teaching — '  Sepher  Yetzi- 
rah,'  or  '  Book  of  Creation ' — '  Zohar,'  or  '  Light ' — Theory  of  the 
latter — Emanations — Adam  ;Kadmon — Three  worlds,  two  spi- 
ritual, one  material  —  Final  destiny  of  all  —  Resemblance  to 
Gnosticism — Chronological  difficulties — Date  and  authorship  of 
the  books  of  the  Kabbala — Influenced  by  Persian  philosophy — 
Relation  to  Gnosticism — Simon  Magus — The  Marcosians— Ba- 
silides  and  Valentinus — Classifications  of  Gnostic  sects — Mosheim 
— Giescler — Neander — Baur — Matter — Order  adopted  in  these 
Lectures  ,  33-47 


LECTURE  IV. 

NOTICES   OF   GNOSTICISM   IN   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT. 

• 

SimonJMagus  mentioned  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles — Earliest  notices 
of  Gnostic  teaching  found  in  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paxil  to  the 
Asiatic  Churches  and  to  Corinth — Epistles  to  the  Corinthians 
— Ephesians — Colossians — Gnostic  term  Pleroma  —  Pastoral 
Epistles — The  Resurrection  spiritually  understood — Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews — JEon  occurs  in  these  Epistles — Not  used  in  the 
Gnostic  sense  till  later  .  48-63 


LECTURE   V. 

NOTICES   OF   GNOSTICISM   IN   THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Prophecies  of  Gnosticism  by  St.  Paul  and  St.  Peter— Era stle  of  St. 
Jude — References  to  the  Nicalaitans— St.  John,  Apocalypse — 
Date — Nicolaitans  mentioned  by  name — Nicolas,  one  of  the  seven 
deacons — Reference  to  Ophites — The  Gospel  written  to  refute 
Gnosticism — Cerinthus  and  others  who  denied  the  Deity  of  our  Lord 
— The  Epistles  directed  against  the  Docetse — In  the  First  Epistle 
references  also  to  Cerinthus — Apostolic  treatment  of  heresies  64-78 


CONTENTS.  xxix 

LECTURE   VI. 

PRECURSORS   OF   GNOSTICISM — SIMON  MAGUS   AND   MENANDER. 

PAGE 

Simon  Magus  mentioned  in1  the  New  Testament — His  pretensions — 
Hostile  Loth  to  Christianity  and  Judaism — Adopts  the  titles  Logos 
and  Power — His  Ennoia — His  teaching — The  Great  '  Announce- 
ment'— The  first  principle,  Fire  or  Silence — Has  two  natures — The 
world  generated  "by  six  emanations  or  '  Eoots ' — The  Perfect  man 
the  complete  manifestation  of  the  whole— Eelation  to  Persian  theo- 
sophy  and  Jewish  Kabbala — This  theory  figurative — Fragment  of 
'the  Announcement'  preserved  by  Hippolytus — Simon  a  false 
Christ,  not  merely  a  false  prophet — Personal  history — Statue  at 
Rome — Accounts  of  his  death — Menander  .  .•  79-94 


LECTURE  VII. 

THE    OPHITE    SECTS. 

Simon  Magus  and  Gnosticism  —  Ophite  sects— Naassenes —  Ophite 
Trinity  —  The  Serpent —  Cainites  — Sethites  —  Peratse  —  Ophite 
heresies  recognise  Jesus  as  a  Redeemer — Ophite  doctrine  of.  Re- 
demption— Sources  and  date  of  the  first  Ophite  sects — Relation  to 
Pantheism — Ophite  doctrine  of  the  Fall  identical  with  that  of 
Hegel — Conclusion 95-100 


LECTURE   VIII. 

CERINTHUS — CARPOCRATES — THE   NAZARENESAND   EBIONITES. 

Gnostic  errors  in  relation  to  the  Person  of  Christ — Result  of  regarding 
matter  as  evil  and  the  source  of  evil — Docetic  heresy  in  the  Apo- 
stolic age — Ebiouite  heresy — Cerinthus — Early  mention  cf  him — 
Teaching  borrowed  from  Philo — Regarded  Judaism  as  imperfect, 
but  not  evil — His  Christology — Opposed  by  St.  John — Baptism  for 
the  dead — Carpocrates — Date — Teaching — Differs  from  Cerinthus 
— Licentiousness  of  his  teaching — His  son  Epiphanes — This 
teaching,  how  reconciled  with  the  Gospel — Prodicus  and  the 
Adamites — Nazarenes  and  Ebionites — Their  doctrine — Origin  of 
the  names— Gospel  of  the  Ebionites— Testimony  borne  by  heretics 
to  the  Catholic  Faith  .  .  .  110-128- 


xxx  CONTENTS. 

LECTURE  IX. 

SYRIAN   GNOSTICISM — SATURNINUS — TATIAN — BARD ESANES. 

TAGB 

Menander  the  parent  of  Syrian  and  Egyptian  Gnosticism — Saturninus  — 
His  relation  to  Simon  and  Menander — His  teaching — A  combina- 
tion of  Persian  and  Alexandrian  doctrine — The  moral  alternative, 
asceticism  or  licentiousness — Tatian — Life  and  tenets — Hydro- 
parastatie — Bardesanes — A  pervert  from  Catholic  Christianity— 
His  Gnostic  teaching— Does  not  separate  the  Supreme  God  from 
the  Creator  —  The  Book  of  the  Laws  of  Countries  —  His  son 
Harmonius — Their  hymns— Syrian  Gnosis — Its  peculiar  tenet  .  129-143 

LECTURE   X. 

EGYPTIAN   GNOSTICISM — BASILIDES. 

J3asilides — His  teaching — Non-existent  Deity — Non-existent  world — 
The  Word  the  seed  of  the  world — Rejects  common  Gnostic  ac- 
counts of  the  Origin  of  Evil — Influenced  by  Greek  philosophy  and 
Alexandrian  Judaism — Introduces  a  Christian  element  from  the 
Gospel  of  St.  John — The  seed  of  the  world  a  threefold  sonship — 
Relation  of  this  allegory  to  the  Mosaic  account  of  Creation — The 
Great  Ruler— The  Ogdoad— The  Hebdomad— The  first  Archon, 
the  Ruler  of  the  Ogdoad — Abrasax — The  Ruler  of  the  Hebdo- 
mad— His  idea  of  Redemption — The  Gospel  the  means  of  deliver- 
ance— Three  periods  of  the  world — Period  of  the  Revelation  of 
the  Sous  of  God — The  Illumination — The  Great  Ignorance — 
Baslideans  accepted  the  reality  of  the  life  and  passion  of  Jesus — 
Basilides  does  not  adopt  the  Docetic  heresy — Nor  Persian  Dual- 
ism— Nor  Emanations — The  account  given  by  Irenseus  probably 
later — His  relation  to  Plato — Caulacau — His  teaching  not  im- 
moral— His  relation  to  Judaism — Position  of  his  teaching  as  a 
system  of  philosophy 144-165 


LECTURE  XI. 

EGYPTIAN   GNOSTICISM — VALENTINUS   AND   THE  VALENTINIANS. 

Yalentinus — His  heresy  refuted  by  Irenseus — Sources  of  his  system- 
Differs  from  that  of  Basilides — Primary  Being,  Depth,  Unspeak- 
able— Three  series  of  ^Eons— Principle  of  his  system— Deals  with 


CONTENTS.  xxxi 

PAGE 

ideal  archetypes — Claims  support  from  the  Gospel  of  St.  John — 
Use  of  terms  JEon,  Pleroma — Yalentinian  theory  of  the  Fall  a 
desire  after  knowledge — The  Eedemption  a  communication  of 
knowledge  effected  by  Christ — A  second  Christ,  Jesus  or  Logos — 
Emanates  from  the  thank-offerings  of  the  JEons — The  Divine 
Nature  represented  by  a  plurality  of  distinct  attributes — Relation 
to  the  philosophical  theology  of  St.  Augustine  .  .  .  166-183 


LECTURE   XII. 

VALENTINUS  AND   THE   VALENTINIANS. 

Homance  of  Valentinus  in  three  parts — The  second  part — Achamoth — 
Her  sorrows  and  sufferings — Her  offspring,  material,  animal, 
spiritual — The  theory  an  attempt  to  explain  how  the  Spiritual 
gives  existence  to  Matter — The  third  part  of  the  romance — For- 
mation of  the  visible  world — The  Demiurge — His  work — This 
theory  recognises  three  classes  of  men,  material,  animal,  spiritual — 
Valentinian  theory  of  Eedemption — Two  kinds  of  Redemption  for 
the  two  higher  classes  of  men — No  Redemption  for  the  material 
part — Valentinian  views  of  the  nature  of  Christ — Tendency  of  this 
teaching  about  Redemption — Followers  of  Valentinus — Ptolemseus 
— His  letter  to  Flora — Marcus — Heracleon — His  commentary  on 
St.  John's  Gospel — The  Coptic  Pistis  Sophia  not  written  by  Valen- 
tinus— System  of  Valentinus  in  principle  Pantheistic— Its  relation 
to  the  Kabbala  184-202 


LECTURE  XIII. 

ASIATIC   GNOSTICISM — MARCION. 

Marcion — His  position — His  life — His  teaching,  a  combination  of 
Rationalism  and  'higher  criticism* — His  system  critical,  not 
metaphysical — He  began  by  criticising  the  Old  Testament— His 
Antitheseis — Meaning  of  the  term  'just' — Tertullian's  answers 
to  Marcion — Marcion  distinguishes  between  two  Gods  and  two 
Christs— His  Christ  of  the  Old  Testament— His  Christ  of  the 
New  Testament  has  neither  a  human  soul  nor  a  seeming  birth, 
only  a  seeming  death — The  contest  between  Christ  and  the 
Demiurge — The  relation  of  Christ  to  the  Supreme  God  unex- 
plained— He  denies  the  resurrection  of  the  body — Condemns 
marriage — Marcionite  baptism — Asceticism — Assumes  only  three 
principles,  but  none  essentially  evil — His  teaching  the  transition 
of  Christian  speculation  from  philosophy  to  pure  theology  .  203-219 


xxxii  CONTENTS. 

LECTURE  XIY. 

JUDAIZING   REACTION — THE   CLEMENTINES — THE   ELKESAITES. 

PAGE 

Comparison  of  earlier  and  later  Gnosticism — Judaiziug  reaction — The 
Clementines — Writings  included  under  this  title — Introduction  to 
the  Homilies— Their  contents — Their  teaching — Leading  feature, 
hostility  to  Marcionism — External  history — Most  nearly  akin  to 
the  doctrines  of  the  Elkesaites — Account  of  Elxai  and  the 
Elkesaites  as  given  by  Epiphanius — Eelation  of  the  teaching  of 
the  Clementines  to  the  tenets  of  the  Elkesaites  220-238 


LECTURE  XV. 

CHRISTIAN  OPPONENTS   OF   GNOSTICISM,    IREN^EUS,    TERTULHAN. 

Antagonists  of  Gnosticism — Irenseus — '  Five  Books  of  the  Eefutation 
and  Overthrow  of  Knowledge  falsely  so  called ' — Date — Account 
of  Contents — Tertullian — His  '  Prsescriptio  adversus  Hsereticos ' — 
His  treatise  against  the  Valentinians — Against  Marcion — Com- 
parison of  these  writers 239-260 


LECTURE  XVI. 

CLEMENT   OF   ALEXANDRIA — HIPPOLYTUS. 

The  Christian  School  at  Alexandria — Clement  succeeds  Pantsenus — 
His  estimate  of  Philosophy — His  principal  works — His  doctrine 
of  the  Logos — Account  of  the  '  Stromateis ' — In  opposition  to 
Gnosticism  he  asserts  the  free  will  of  man — The  true  value  of 
the  material  creation— He  defends  marriage — He 't  answers  the 
Gnostic  theories  by  a  counter-sketch  of  the  true  Gnostic — Differ- 
ence between  his  true  knowledge  and  the  knowledge  claimed  by 
the  Gnostic  heretics — Comparison  of  Clement  with  Irenseus — 
Hippolytus  ..........  261-275- 


THE 

GNOSTIC  HEEESIES 

OF   THE 

FIRST    AND    SECOND    CENTUEIES. 


LECTUEE     I. 

INTRODUCTION. 

THE  meaning  of  the  term  Crnosis  or  Knowledge,  as  ap- 
plied to  a  system  of  philosophy,  may  be  illustrated 
by  the  language  of  Plato  towards  the  end  of  the  fifth  book 
of  the  Republic,  in  which  he  distinguishes  between  know- 
ledge (yvwais)  and  opinion  (Sofa)  as  being  concerned 
respectively  with  the  real  (TO,  ov)  and  the  apparent  (TO 
(frawo/jisvov).  When  to  this  distinction  is  added  the  further 
explanation  that  the  objects  of  sense,  the  visible  things  of 
the  world,  belong  to  the  class  of  phenomena  and  are 
objects  of  opinion,  while  the  invisible  essence  of  things,  the 
one  as  distinguished  from  the  many,  is  the  true  reality, 
discerned  not  by  sense  but  by  intellect,  we  shall  be  jus- 
tified in  identifying '  knowledge  '  with  that  apprehension  of 
things  which  penetrates  beyond  their  sensible  appearances 
to  their  essence  and  cause,  and  which  differs  in  name  only 
from  that  'wisdom'  (cro<f>la)  which  Aristotle  tells  us  is  by 
common  consent  admitted  to  consist  in  a  knowledge  of 

B 


2  GNOSTIC  HERESIES.  LECT.  i. 

First  Causes  or  Principles.1     In  this  general  sense  how- 
ever, the  term  yvwais  has  nothing  to  distinguish  it  from 
the  ordinary  Greek  conception  of  'philosophy,'  and  so 
long  as  it  remains  solely  within  the  region  of  philoso- 
phical inquiry  and  terminology,  we  do  not  find  it  generally 
employed  to  designate  either  philosophy  as  a  whole  or  any 
special  philosophical   system.2     It   is   not   till  after  the 
Christian  era  that  the  term  comes  into  use  as  the  distinct 
designation  of  a  certain   form   of  religious   philosophy, 
emanating  in  some  degree  from  Christian  sources;  and 
influenced   by   Christian   ideas  and   Christian   language. 
Even  in  the  earlier  association  of  Greek  philosophy  with 
a  revealed  religion,  which  is  manifested  in  the  Grseco- 
Jewish  philosophy  of  Alexandria,  though  the  teaching  of 
Philo  may  be  regarded  as  embodying  the  essential  consti- 
tuents of  Gnosticism  in  an  entire  if  an  undeveloped  form, 
we  do  not  find  the  distinctive  name  of  Gnosis  or  Gnostic 
applied  to  designate  the  system  or  its  teachers.     It  is  not 
indeed  difficult  to  detect  in  Philo  the  germs  of  the  later 
Gnosticism,   but   they  are   present   under   other   names. 
The  wise  man,  the  perfect  man,  the  philosopher,  the  con- 
templative man,3  are  names  applied  by  Philo   to  those 
favoured  persons  who  are  permitted  to  attain  to  a  know- 
ledge of  divine  things,  so  far  as  it  is  attainable  by  man  ; 
the  peculiar  designations  of  Gnosis  and  Gnostic  do  not 
appear.4     In  their  actual  use,  if  not  in  their  etymological 
meaning,  the  terms  Gnostic,  Gnosis,  Gnosticism,  as  names 
of  a  sect  of  philosophers  or  the  doctrines  professed  by 
them,  have  been  employed  exclusively  with  reference  to 
philosophical  systems  which  have  distinguished  themselves, 


1  Metaph.  i.  1  :  rrjv  bw^a^o^v^v  Fragm.  p.  637  ;  De  Conf.  Ling.   20, 
ffoQiav  irepl  ra  Trp&ra.  atria  Kal  apxas  p.  419  ;  De  Prcem.  et  P&n.  7,  p.  415. 
vTToXa^avovffi  irdvrfs.  *  Cf.    Harvey's   Irencsus,    vol.    I. 

2  Cf.  Burton,  Bampton  Lectures,  p.  cxifc  ;   Matter,  Histoire  du  Gnosti- 
p.  358.  ei»me,  vol.  I.  p.  62  (2nd  edit.) 

8  Legis   Alkg.  iii.     73,   p.     128; 


LECT  i.  INTRODUCTION.  3 

not  merely  as  ontological  speculations,  but  also  as  here- 
tical perversions  of  Christianity.  It  is  necessary  there- 
fore to  a  full  explanation  of  the  historical  import  of  the 
terms  that  we  should  pay  attention,  not  merely  to  the 
general  distinctions  between  knowledge  and  opinion, 
between  the  real  and  the  apparent,  between  ontology 
and  phenomenology,  but  also  to  the  especially  Christian 
feature,  the  perversion  of  which  distinguishes  Gnosticism 
as  a  heresy  from  other  forms  of  speculation,  which,  how- 
ever extravagant  in  their  pretensions,  however  erroneous 
in  their  results,  however  alien  from  or  opposed  to  the 
doctrines  of  the  Christian  revelation,  have  never  been 
classified  as  heresies,  but  only  as  philosophies,  heathenish 
it  may  be  or  anti-Christian,  but  not  properly  heretical. 
The  feature  in  question  will  be  found  in  the  idea,  common 
alike  to  Gnosticism  and  Christianity,  but  not  shared  by 
that  philosophy  from  which  the  name  and  many  of  the 
leading  ideas  of  Gnosticism  are  borrowed— the  idea  of  a 
Eedemption — of  a  Divine  interposition  to  deliver  the  world 
from  the  dominion  of  evil  and  its  consequences.1 

Among  the  Greek  philosophical  systems,  as  the  idea 
of  evil  holds  a  very  subordinate  and  insignificant  place,  so 
the  idea  of  redemption  seems  not  to  be  recognised  at  all. 
The  world  and  its  phenomena  are  regarded  from  the  most 
various  points  of  view.  It  may  be  as  the  spontaneous 
development  of  some  primitive  vital  force,  as  in  the  hylo- 
zoism  of  the  early  lonians ;  it  may  be  as  the  momentary 
collision  of  opposite  forces  and  the  perpetual  passing  from 
one  state  of  being  to  another,  as  in  the  system  of  Hera- 
clitus ;  it  may  be  as  a  motionless  uniformity,  without 
plurality  and  without  change,  as  in  the  theory  of  the 
Eleatics ;  it  may  be  as  a  continuous  development  under 
the  influence  of  an  exte_nal  power,  as  in  the  philosophy 

1  Cf.  Baur,  Die  Christliche  Gnosis  p.  27. 
B  2 


4  GNOSTIC  HERESIES.  LECT.  i. 

of  Anaxagoras ;  it  may  be  as  the  subject  of  successive 
cycles,  of  opposite  states  alternating  with  each  other,  as 
in  the  doctrine  of  Empedocles,  and  again  in  that  of  Plato, 
and  more  distinctly  still  in  that  of  the  Stoics ;  it  may  be 
as  an  organised  system  in  eternal  revolution,  as  in  the 
Peripatetic  philosophy ;  but  in  all  these  systems  alike,  the 
world,  through  all  its  changes  or  appearances  of  change, 
does  but  exhibit  the  working  of  one  law  or  one  nature 
essentially  belonging  to  it,  and  continuing  to  act  upon  it 
or  in  it  throughout  its  whole  existence :  there  is  no  trace 
of  any  such  conception  as  that  of  a  new  power  introduced 
into  the  world  to  deliver  it  from  the  law  to  which  it  is 
subject,  to  exalt  it  permanently  and  progressively  to  a 
higher  and  better  existence  and  destiny.  This  one  per- 
vading deficiency,  which  characterizes  the  whole  current 
of  Greek  thought,  is  strikingly  and  painfully  brought  into 
light  in  the  lines  of  a  great  poet  of  our  own  country,  one 
who,  unhappily  an  unbeliever  in  the  truths  of  Christianity, 
endeavoured  to  replace  what  he  had  rejected  by  elevating 
the  speculations  of  Pagan  philosophy  to  the  Christian 
level.  The  Great  Year  of  the  Stoics,  the  destruction  of 
the  old  world,  the  commencement  of  the  new  cycle,  takes 
the  place  of  the  Christian  expectation  of  the  delivery  of 
the  creature  from  the  bondage  of  corruption;  but  after 
the  triumphant  opening  of  the  poem  with  its  exulting 
description  of  the  regenerated  world  in  its  new  cycle,  the 
melancholy  conclusion  tells  us  too  plainly,  by  the  un- 
willing confession  of  an  advocate,  that  the  vaunted  re- 
generation of  philosophy  is  but  an  endless  repetition  of 
the  old  evil : 

The  world's  great  age  begins  anew, 

The  golden  years  return  ; 
The  earth  doth  like  a  snake  renew 

Her  winter  weeds  outworn; 


LECT.  i.  INTRODUCTION. 

Heaven  smiles  ;  and  faiths  and  empires  gleam 
Like  wrecks  of  a  dissolving  dream. 

A  brighter  Hellas  rears  its  mountains 

From  waves  serener  far, 
A  new  Peneus  rolls  its  fountains 

Against  the  morning  star, 
Where  fairer  Tempes  bloom,  there  sleep 
Young  Cyelads  on  a  sunnier  deep. 

A  loftier  Argo  cleaves  the  main, 

Fraught  with  a  later  prize ; 
Another  Orpheus  sings  again, 

And  loves,  and  weeps,  and  dies  ; 
A  new  Ulysses  leaves  once  more 
Calypso  for  his  native  shore. 

Another  Athens  shall  arise, 

And  to  remoter  time 
Bequeath,  like  sunset  to  the  skies, 

The  splendour  of  its  prime  ; 
And  leave,  if  nought  so  bright  may  live, 
All  earth  can  take  or  heaven  can  give. 


O  cease  !  must  hate  and  death  return  ? 

Cease  !  must  men  kill  and  die  ? 
Cease !  drain  not  to  its  dregs  the  urn 

Of  bitter  prophecy. 
The  world  is  weary  of  the  past ; 
O  might  it  die,  or  rest  at  last  ! l 

The  distinctive  feature  which  marks  Gnosticism  in  all 
its  schools  as  a  religious  heresy,  and  not  as  a  mere  philo- 
sophical extravagance,  is  the  presence  of  this  idea  of  a 
redemption  of  the  world,  and  the  recognition,  in  a  per- 
verted form,  of  the  person  and  work  of  Christ  as  taking 
part  in  this  redemption.2  And  this  indication  of  a  partly 

1  Shelley,  Hellas. 

2  See  Dorner,  Person  of  Christ,  vol.  I.  Note  U  (Eng.  Tr.  p.  344). 


6  GNOSTIC  HERESIES.  LECT.  i. 

Christian  source  of  the  system  will  also  throw  some  light 
on  the  origin  of  the  name  by  which  it  has  been  generally 
designated.  Already  in  the  LXX  translation  of  the  Old 
Testament,  and  still  more  clearly  in  the  Apocryphal  Book 
of  Wisdom,  the  term  ryv&vis  had  been  employed  to  denote 
a  knowledge  of  the  true  God  or  a  knowledge  especially 
given  by  Him ; ]  and  the  same  term  was  employed  by  the 
writers  of  the  New  Testament  for  that  knowledge  of  God 
through  Christ  which  is  given  by  the  Gospel.  The 
mission  of  John  the  Baptist  is  prophetically  declared  by 
his  father  as  to  give  knowledge  of  salvation  to  the  Lord's 
people.2  St  Paul  speaks  of  his  Corinthian  converts  as 
enriched  by  Christ  in  all  utterance  and  in  all  knowledge ; 3 
he  enumerates  among  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit  the  word  of 
knowledge;*  he  tells  them,  again  that  God  hath  shined  in 
our  hearts  to  give  the  light  of  the  knowledge  of  the  glory 
of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ.5  In  like  manner  he 
speaks  of  casting  down  imaginations  and  every  high 
thing  that  exalteth  itself  against  the  knowledge  of  God ; 6 
and  says  that  he  counts  all  things  but  loss  for  the  excel- 
lency of  the  knowledge  of  Christ  Jesus.7  St  Peter,  in  a 
like  sense,  exhorts  the  disciples  to  whom  he  writes  to  add 
to  their  faith  virtue,  and  to  virtue  knowledge*  and  bids 
them  grow  in  grace  and  in  the  knowledge  of  our  Lord  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ.9  Yet  there  are  manifest  indications 
of  the  existence,  even  in  Apostolic  times,  of  a  system  of 
false  teaching  which  had  usurped  to  itself  especially  the 
name  of  knowledge.  Not  to  dwell  now  upon  the  pro- 


1  Ps.  cxviii  (cxix).  66  ;  Prov.  viii. 
12,  xxx.  3  (xxiv.  26  in  Vat.) ;  Eccl. 
ii.  26;  Isa.  xi.  2;  Wisd.  ii.  13,  vii. 
17,  x.  10,  xiv.  22.  The  term  -yvaxrTris 
is  sometimes  employed  in  the  sense  of 
a  diviner  or  wizard:  1  Sam.  xxviii. 
3,  9 ;  2  Kings  xxi.  6.  See  Matter, 
vol.  I.  p.  161. 


Luke  i.  77. 
1  Cor.  i.  5. 

1  Cor.  xii.  8. 

2  Cor.  iv.  6. 
2  Cor.  x.  5. 
Phil.  iii.  8. 

2  Peter  i.  5,  6. 
2  Peter  iii.  18. 


LECT.  I.  INTRODUCTION.  7 

bable  meaning  of  the  disputed  passage  in  the  eighth 
chapter  of  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  where 
the  indifference  as  regards  meats  offered  to  idols  is 
spoken  of  as  the  knowledge  that  puffeth  up,1  we  have  at 
least  the  unmistakeable  and  emphatic  warning  of  the 
Apostle  to  Timothy,  rrjv  TrapatcaTaQijKrjv  <£i/Xafov,  s/crpsTro- 
psvos  ras  fts{Br)\Qvs  Ksvotyoovias  KOI  avTiOsasis  Trjs  tysvBavvfjiov 
ryvcocrsws,2  a  passage  the  point  of  which  in  relation  to 
the  texts  previously  quoted  is  obscured  in  our  Autho- 
rised Version  by  the  substitution  of  the  word  science  for 
knowledge. 

It  is  probable  therefore,  that  the  adoption  of  the  terms 
Gnosis  and  Gnostic,  as  special  designations  of  a  philosophy 
and  its  professors,  arose  from  the  language  of  Christianity, 
and  was  intended  to  distinguish  the  Gnostic  teaching  as 
the  rival  and  the  assumed  superior  of  the  Christian  Church. 
The  former  of  these  terms  (yvwcris),  as  we  have  seen,  is 
contemporaneous  with  the  teaching  of  St  Paul ;  the  latter 
(yvwcm/cos)  is  of  later  origin,  and  is  said  to  have  been 
first  assumed  towards  the  end  of  the  first  or  beginning 
of  the  second  century  by  the  sect  of  the  Ophites,3  or 
according  to  another  account  by  Carpocrates.4  The  dis- 
tinction between  the  true  and  the  false  knowledge, 
between  the  knowledge  claimed  as  the  heritage  of  the 
Christian  Church  and  the  knowledge  claimed  by  the  rival 
systems  which  gloried  in  the  name,  is  that  which  in  all 
ages  has  distinguished  the  wisdom  which  is  built  on  faith 
and  received  of  God,  from  that  which  is  built  on  doubt  and 
invented  by  man.  The  knowledge  professed  by  the  Christian 
Church  was  a  knowledge  given  by  divine  revelation  and 
accepted  in  faith ;  whatever  fuller  insight  into  divine 

1  1  Cor.  viii.  1.  4  Irenseus,  Her.  i.  25  j  cf.  Eusebius, 

2  1  Tim.  vi.  20.  H.  E.  iv.  7,  9. 
*  Hippolytus,  Eef.  Hcer.  v.  6. 


8  GNOSTIC  HERESIES.  IECT.  i. 

things  could  be  attained  by  study  or  contemplation  was 
admitted  only  in  so  far  as  it  was  in  accordance  with  the 
revealed  teaching,  and,  if  not  identical  with  it,  at  least  a 
legitimate  interpretation  or  explanation  of  it.  The  know- 
ledge professed  by  the  Gnostic  teachers,  on  the  other  hand, 
was  a  knowledge  designed  to  subordinate  the  revelation 
of  Christ  to  the  speculations  of  human  philosophy — a 
curious  inquiry,  searching  after  an  apprehension  of  God, 
not  in  what  He  has  revealed  of  Himself,  but  in  that  which 
He  has  not  revealed — an  inquiry  which,  under  the  pre- 
tence of  giving  a  deeper  and  more  spiritual  meaning  to  the 
Christian  revelation,  in  fact  uprooted  its  very  foundations 
by  making  it  subservient  to  theories  incompatible  with  its 
first  principles — theories  of  human  invention,  originating 
in  heathen  philosophies,  and  making  those  philosophies 
the  criterion  and  end  of  revelation,  instead  of  regarding 
revelation  as  the  discovery  by  God  of  those  truths  which 
human  wisdom  had  desired  to  see  and  had  not  seen. 
Such  is  the  distinction  with  which  St  Paul  combats  the 
Gnostic  systems  in  their  germ  and  infancy.  'As  ye 
have  therefore  received  Christ  Jesus  the  Lord,  so  walk  in 
Him ;  rooted  and  built  up  in  Him,  and  stablished  in  the 
faith,  as  ye  have  been  taught,  abounding  therein  with 
thanksgiving.  Beware  lest  any  man  spoil  you  through* 
philosophy  and  vain  deceit,  after  the  tradition  of  men, 
after  the  rudiments  of  the  world,  and  not  after  Christ. 
For  in  Him  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily.' l 
And  at  the  end  of  the  second  or  beginning  of  the  third 
century,2  when  the  principal  Gnostic  systems  had  risen 
and  flourished  and  were  entering  on  the  period  of  their 
decay,  we  find  Clement  of  Alexandria  adopting  a  similar 

1  Coloss.  ii.  6-9.  (Potter).     Cave,  Hist.  Lit.  p.  89,  sup- 

2  The  Stromateis  were    certainly      poses  the  work  to  have  been  written 
written  after  the  death  of  Commodv.s      in  the  same  year. 

(A.D.  193) :  see  Strom.  I  21,  p.  406 


LECT.  i.  INTRODUCTION.  9 

criterion  to  distinguish  between  the  true  Gnostic  or  perfect 
Christian  and  the  disciples  of  the  false  systems  which  laid 
claim  to  the  name.  6  That  alone/  he  says,  '  is  the  proper 
and  incontestable  truth,  in  which  we  are  instructed  by 
the  Son  of  God '  .  .  .  .  '  That  truth  which  the  Greeks 
profess,  though  it  partake  of  the  same  name,  is  divided 
from  ours,  as  regards  magnitude  of  knowledge  and  force 
of  demonstration  and  divine  power,  and  the  like ;  for  we 
are  taught  of  God,  instructed  in  truly  sacred  literature  by 
the  Son  of  God.' *  '  Faith,'  he  says  in  the  same  book,  '  is 
the  first  element  of  knowledge,  as  necessary  to  the  true 
Gnostic  as  breathing  is  to  life.  As  we  cannot  live  without 
the  four  elements,  neither  can  we  attain  to  knowledge 
without  faith.' 2  And  again  ;  '  That  which  we  possess  is 
the  only  true  demonstration,  being  supplied  by  the  sacred 
literature  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  by  the  heaven-taught 
wisdom,  as  the  Apostle  calls  it  (1  Thess.  iv.  9).  .  .  .  But 
that  demonstration  which  begets  opinion  and  not  know- 
ledge is  human,  and  is  made  by  rhetorical  argument  and 
dialectical  syllogisms ;  whereas  the  demonstration  which  is 
from  above  produces  the  faith  of  knowledge,  by  the  com- 
parison and  interpretation  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  in  the 
soul  of  those  who  are  desirous  of  learning.' 3 

The  Gnostics  in  fact  regarded  the  Christian  revelation 
as  having  a  similar  relation  towards  speculative  philosophy 
to  that  in  which  the  Jewish  religion  was  regarded  by 
Christians  as  standing  towards  their  own  belief.  As  the 
institutions  of  Judaism  under  type  and  symbol  prefigured 
in  the  Christian  belief  the  fuller  revelation  ,of  Christ,  so 
Christianity  itself,  in  the  estimation  of  the  Gnostics,  was 
but  a  figurative  and  symbolical  exposition  of  truths,  the 

.    l  Strom,   i.    20,   p.  876   (Potter).  p.  136. 

Of.  Bishop  Kaye's  Clement  of  Alcxan-  *  Ibid.  ii.   11,  p.  454.     Cf.  Kaye, 

dria  p.  124.      *  p.  139. 
2  Ibid.  ii.  6,   p.  445.     Cf.  Kaye, 


10  GNOSTIC  HERESIES.  LECT.  i. 

fuller  meaning  of  which  was  to  be  supplied  by  philosophical 
speculation.  Gnosticism  revived  the  idea,  familiar  to 
heathen  thought  but  wholly  alien  to  the  spirit  of 
Christianity,  of  one  religion  designed  for  the  wise  and 
the  initiated,  and  another  for  the  ignorant  and  profane 
vulgar.  Faith,  the  foundation  of  Christian  knowledge,  was 
fitted  only  for  the  rude  mass,  the  ^Jrvx^ol  or  animal  men 
who  were  incapable  of  higher  things.  Far  above  these 
were  the  privileged  natures,  the  men  of  intellect,  the 
TrvsvpaTLKol  or  spiritual  men,  whose  vocation  was  not  to 
believe  but  to  know.1  How  completely  this  distinction 
perverted  the  language  of  St  Paul,2  on  which  it  was 
nominally  founded,  will  appear  in  the  subsequent  course 
of  our  inquiry.  Such  a  distinction,  as  Neander  has  well 
observed,  was  natural  in  the  heathen  systems  of  antiquity, 
because  heathenism  was  destitute  of  any  independent 
means,  adapted  alike  to  all  stages  of  human  enlightenment, 
for  satisfying  man's  religious  needs.  Such  a  means 
however  was  supplied  in  Christianity  by  a  faith  in  great 
historical  facts,  on  which  the  religious  convictions  of  all 
men  alike  were  to  depend.  Gnosticism,  by  a  reactionary 
process,  tended  to  make  religion  forfeit  the  freedom  gained 
for  it  by  Christ,  and  to  make  it  again  dependent  on  human 
speculations.  Christianity  had  furnished  a  simple  and 
universally  intelligible  solution  of  every  enigma  which 
had  occupied  thinking  minds — a  practical  answer  to  all 
the  questions  which  speculation  had  busied  itself  in  vain 
to  answer.  It  established  a  temper  of  mind  by  which 
doubts  that  could  not  be  resolved  by  the  efforts  of  specu- 
lative reason  were  to  be  practically  vanquished.  But 
Gnosticism  wished  to  make  religion  once  more  dependent 

1  See  Neander,    Church    History,       ytuv,    avro'ts   8£   r^v  ywaffiv   (of  the 
vol.  II.  p.  2  (ed.  Bohn).     Of.  Clem.       Valentinians). 
Alex.  Strom,   ii.    3    (p.  433,  Potter),  2  1  Coi\  ii.  14,  \5. 


LECT.  i.  INTRODUCTION.  11 

on  a  speculative  solution  of  these  questions.1  Eeligion 
was  to  be  founded,  not  on  historical  facts,  but  on  ontological 
ideas :  through  speculations  on  existence  in  general  and  its 
necessary  evolutions,  men  were  to  be  led  to  a  comprehension 
of  the  true  meaning  of  what  Christianity  represents  under 
a  historical  veil.  The  motto  of  the  Gnostic  might  be 
exactly  given  in  the  words  of  a  distinguished  modern 
philosopher,  '  Men  are  saved,  not  by  the  historical,  but  by 
the  metaphysical.'2 

Two  metaphysical  problems  may  be  particularly  speci- 
fied as  those  which  Gnosticism  borrowed  from  heathen 
philosophy,  and  to  the  solution  of  which  the  Christian 
revelation  was  made  subordinate — the  problem  of  Absolute 
Existence  and  the  problem  of  the  Origin  of  Evil.  The 
two  indeed,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter,  were  by  the  Gnos- 
tics generalised  into  one  ;  and  this  union  may  explain  the 
language  of  Tertullian,  Eusebius,  and  Epiphanius,  all  off 
whom  speak  of  the  origin  of  evil  as  the  great  object  ofy 
heretical  inquiry ; 3  but  in  themselves  and  in  their  his- 
torical relations,  the  two  problems  may  be  regarded  as 
distinct,  and  each  contributes  its  own  ingredient  to  form 
the  anti- Christian  side  of  the  Gnostic  speculation.  The 
search  after  an  absolute  first  principle,  the  inquiry  how 
the  absolute  and  unconditioned  can  give  rise  to  the  relative 
and  conditioned,  is  one  which,  when  pursued  as  a  theo- 
logical inquiry,  almost  inevitably  leads  to  a  denial  of  the 
personality  of  God.  Philosophy  striving  after  a  first 

1  Neander,  Church  History >VQ\.  II.  tatus  implicantur;   Unde  malum    et 
p.  4.  quare  ? ' ;    Eusebius,     H.    E.    v.    27 

2  '  Nur  das  Metaphysische,  keines-  irepl    rov     iro\v6pv\\j)Tov    irapa  rots 
weges    aber  das    Historische    macht  ctipeo-uarais   (Vj-Hj/AaTos,    rov   U60ev   f) 
selig ' ;  Fichte,  Anweisung  zum  seligen  HaKia ;    Epiphan.  R&r.  xxiv,  6  "E(rxe 
Lfben  ( Werke  v,  p.  485).  Se   ^  opx'?  T'?!f  KaK^s  irpoQdffws    r))i> 

3  Tertullian,  De  Prcescr.  H&ret.  7  alriav  curb  rov  frreiv  Kal  \eyeiv,  U6dev 
'  Esedem  materise  apud  haereticos   et  rb  naK6v ;  Of.  Baur,  Die  Ghr.  Grnosis 
philosophos  volutantur,  iidem  retract-  p.  19, 


12  GNOSTIC  HERESIES.  LECT.  i. 

principle  which  shall  be  one  and  simple  and  unconditioned, 
and  incapable  of  all  farther  analysis  in  thought,  is  naturally 
tempted  to  soar  above  that  complex  combination  of  at- 
tributes which  is  implied  in  our  conception  of  personality, 
and  in  endeavouring  to  simplify  and  purify  our  representa- 
tion of  the  Divine  nature,  ends  by  depriving  it  of  every 
attribute  which  can  make  God  the  object  of  any  religious 
feeling  or  the  source  of  any  moral  obligation.  Instead  of 
a  religious  relation  between  God  and  man,  the  relation  of 
a  person  to  a  person,  this  philosophy  substitutes  a  meta- 
physical relation  between  God  and  the  world,  as  absolute 
and  relative,  cause  and  effect,  principle  and  consequence — 
happy  if  it  stops  short  at  this  error  only,  and  does  not  find 
itself  compelled  by  the  inexorable  laws  of  its  own  logic  to 
i  identify  God  with  the  world.  And  when  the  standpoint 
of  philosophy  is  thus  removed  from  a  moral  to  a  meta- 
physical aspect  of  God,  the  other  great  problem,  the  Origin 
of  Evil,  naturally  assumes  a  similar  character.  Evil  no 
longer  appears  in  the  form  of  sin,  as  a  transgression  on  the 
part  of  a  moral  agent  against  the  laws  and  will  of  a  moral 
Governor.  The  personality  of  God  having  disappeared,  the 
personality  of  man  naturally  disappears  along  with  it. 
Man  is  no  longer  the  special  subject  of  relations  towards 
God  peculiar  to  himself  by  virtue  of  that  personal  and 
moral  nature  in  which  he  alone  of  God's  earthly  creatures 
bears  the  image  of  his  Maker :  he  is  viewed  but  as  a  por- 
tion of  the  universe,  an  atom  in  that  vast  system  of  derived 
existence  which  emanates  from  the  one  First  Principle.1 
The  course  of  the  world  is  his  course  as  a  part  of  the 
world ;  the  laws  of  the  world  are  his  laws  also,  and  the  one 
pre-eminence  of  man  among  creatures,  the  one  attribute 
which  constitutes  him  a  person  and  not  a  thing — the  at- 
tribute of  Free-Will — is  swallowed  up  in  the  depths  and 

1  Of.  Baur,  Die  Chr.  Gnosis  p.  67. 


LECT.  I.  INTRODUCTION.  13 

carried  along  with  the  stream  of  the  necessary  evolution 
of  being.  Contemplated  from  this  point  of  view,  evil  is 
no  longer  a  moral  but  a  natural  phenomenon  ;  it  becomes 
identical  with  the  imperfect,  the  relative,  the  finite ;  all 
nature  being  governed  by  the  same  law  and  developed  from 
the  same  principle,  no  one  portion  of  its  phenomena  can  it- 
self be  more  evil,  more  contrary  to  the  law,  than  another  ; 
all  alike  are  evil  only  so  far  as  they  are  imperfect ;  all  alike 
are  imperfect,  so  far  as  they  are  a  falling  off  from  the  per- 
fection of  the  absolute.1  Thus  contemplated,  the  problem 
of  the  origin  of  evil  is  identified  with  that  of  the  origin  of 
finite  and  relative  existence ;  the  question  how  can  the 
good  give  birth  to  the  evil,  is  only  another  mode  of  asking 
how  can  the  absolute  give  birth  to  the  relative ;  the  two 
great  inquiries  of  philosophy  are  merged  into  one,  and 
religion  and  morality  become  nothing  more  than  curious 
questions  of  metaphysics. 

And  such,  as  we  shall  see,  was  the  actual  course  of  the 
Gnostic  speculations  ;'  and  this  circumstance  will  serve  to 
explain  the  earnest  abhorrence,  the  strong  feeling  of  irre- 
concilable hostility,  with  which  this  teaching  was  regarded 
by  the  Apostles  and  Fathers  of  the  Church.  It  was  not 
merely  an  erroneous  opinion  on  certain  points  of  belief  that 
they  were  combating  ;  it  was  a  principle  which  destroyed 
the  possibility  of  any  religion  at  all ;  which,  in  setting  aside 
the  personality  of  God  and  the  personality  of  man,  struck 
at  the  root  and  basis  of  all  natural  religion ;  which,  by 
virtually  denying  the  existence  of  sin  and  consequently 
of  redemption  from  sin,  took  away  the  whole  significance 
of  the  revelation  of  Christ.  With  this  view  of  the  spirit 
of  the  Gnostic  teaching,  we  may  the  more  readily  believe 
the  tradition  of  the  vehement  language  of  St  John,  (  Let 
us  fly,  lest  the  bath  fall  in,  while  Cerinthus  the  enemy  of 

1  Cf.  Baur,  Die  Chr.  Gnosis  p.  20. 


14  GNOSTIC  HERESIES.  LECT.  i. 

the  truth  is  in  it  '  1  —  language  which  jet  is  hardly  stronger 
than  his  own  recorded  words,  (  Who  is  a  liar  but  he  that 
denieth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  ?     He  is  antichrist  that 
denieth  the  Father  and  the  Son.'  2     We  may  understand 
the  zealous  horror  with  which  St  Polycarp,  the  disciple  of 
St  John,  addressed  the  Gnostic  Marcion,  (  I  know  thee  the 
firstborn  of  Satan.'  3     This  very  charge  of  destroying  the 
free  will  of  man  and  subverting  the  distinction  between 
/  right  and  wrong  is  made  in  express  terms  by  Clement  of 
Alexandria   against  the  doctrines  of  Basilides  and   the 
Valentinians  ;  and  his  argument  may  be  extended  beyond 
the  point  of  view  in  which  he  has  stated  it,  to  the  whole 
sphere  of  man's  moral  and  religious  action.     (  Faith,'  he 
says,  c  if  it  be  a  natural  privilege,  is  no  longer  a  voluntary 
right  action  ;  nor  can  the  unbeliever  be  justly  punished,  not 
being  the  cause  of  his  own  unbelief,  as  the  believer  is  not 
the  cause  of  his  own  belief.     Moreover,  if  we  rightly  con- 
sider, the  whole  distinctive  character  of  belief  and  unbelief 
cannot  be  liable  to  praise  or  blame,  being  preceded  by  a 
natural  necessity  sprung  from  Him  who  is  all-powerful.'  4 
This  feature  of  the  controversy  is  not  without  interest 
to  us  in  this  present  day  ;  for,  however  different  may  be 
the  premises  of  the  popular  philosophy  of  our  own  time, 
it   conducts   us   to   precisely  the  same    conclusion.      In 
this   common    error  the   most   opposite   extremes    meet 
together  ;  the  transcendental  metaphysics  of  the  Gnostic 
philosophy  and  the  grovelling  materialism  of  our  own  day 
join  hands   together   in   subjecting   man's  actions   to  a 
natural  necessity,  in  declaring  that  he  is  the  slave  of  the 
circumstances  in  which  he  is  placed  ;  his  course  of  action 
being  certainly  determined  by  them  as  effect  by  cause  and 


.ni.  3;  cf.Eusebius,  s  Irenaeus,  I.  c.  ;  Eusebius,  I.e. 

H.  E.  iv.  14.  «  Strom,  ii.  3  (p.  434,  Potter). 

2  1  John  ii.  22. 


LECT.  I.  INTRODUCTION.  15 

consequent  by  antecedent.  Merged  in  the  intelligible 
universe  by  the  Gnostic  of  old,  man  is  no  less  by  modern 
' science  falsely  so  called  '  merged  in  the  risible  universe  ; 
his  actions  or  volitions  are  moral  effects  which  follow  their 
moral  causes  *  as  certainly  and  invariably  as  physical  effects 
follow  their  physical  causes.' l  Under  this  assumption  the 
distinction  between  moral  evil  and  physical  entirely 
vanishes.  A  man>  however  inconvenient  his  actions  may 
be  to  his  neighbour,  is  no  more  to  blame  for  committing 
them  than  is  a  fire  for  consuming  his  neighbour's  house 
or  a  sickness  for  destroying  his  life.  Man  cannot  offend 
against  any  law  of  God ;  for  his  actions  are  the  direct  con- 
sequence of  the  laws  which  God  (if  there  be  a  God)  has 
established  in  the  world ;  he  is  subject,  to  repeat  the  words 
of  Clement,  to  a  natural  necessity  derived  from  Him  who 
is  all-powerful.  The  consciousness  of  freedom  is  a  de- 
lusion ;  the  consciousness  of  sin  is  a  delusion ;  the  perso- 
nality of  man  disappears  under  the  all-absorbing  vortex  of 
matter  and  its  laws.  How  long,  we  may  ask,  will  it  be 
before  the  personality  of  God  disappears  also,  and  the 
vortex  of  matter  becomes  all  in  all  ? 

Atz/os  /3a(n\ev£i,}  TOV  At"  e%£\r)\arc(Ji)s.2 


1  Mill,  Examination  of  Sir  W.  Hamilton's  Philosophy  p.  501. 

2  Aristophanes,  Nub.  1471. 


16  SOURCES  OF  GNOSTICISM.  IECT.  n. 


LECTUEE   II. 

SOURCES    OP   GNOSTICISM. 

IN  my  last  lecture  I  mentioned  two  problems  borrowed 
from  heathen  philosophy,  and  intruded  by  Gnosticism  on 
the  Christian  revelation — the  problem  of  Absolute  Exist- 
ence and  the  problem  of  the  Origin  of  Evil.  These  two 
problems,  as  we  have  seen,  were  by  the  Gnostics  merged 
into  one ;  but  they  came  to  them  from  different  sources, 
and  their  previous  history  to  some  extent  belongs  to 
different  systems  of  philosophy.  The  problem  of  the 
Absolute  was  handed  down  to  them  from  Plato,  through 
the  medium  of  the  Grseco-Jewish  school  of  Alexandria 
represented  by  Philo.  Plato,  towards  the  end  of  the 
sixth  Book  of  the  Eepublic,  had  described  the  endea- 
vour of  philosophy  to  ascend  as  far  as  the  unconditioned 
(fAsXP1'  T°v  awTToOsrov) l  to  the  first  principle  of  the 
universe,  and  had  spoken  of  this  first  principle  or  ideal 
good  as  being  something  transcending  all  definite  exis- 
tence (OVK  ovcrias  OVTOS  rov  ayaOov,  aXX,'  STL  sTTEKSiva  TT/S 
over  las  Trpsa-^sia  KOL  Swa/uei,  vTrspe^ovros).2  From  this 
language,  coupled  with  a  perverted  interpretation  of  the 
Platonic  cosmogony,  as  represented  in  the  Timseus, 
Philo  elaborated  a  theory  for  the  interpretation  of  the 
Jewish  Scriptures,  according  to  which  the  God  who  made 
and  who  governs  the  world,  the  God  whose  personal 
intercourse  with  His  chosen  people  is  conspicuous  through- 

:  Eesp.  vi.  p.  511.  2  find.  p.  509. 


LECT.  ii.  SOURCES  OF  GNOSTICISM,  17 

out  the  whole  teaching  of  the  Old  Testament,  is  distin- 
guished from  the  absolute  first  principle,  which,  as  being 
beyond  personality  and  beyond  definite  existence,  is 
immutable  and  incapable  of  relation  to  finite  things. 
This  latter — the  supreme  God — is  absolute  and  simple 
existence,  without  qualities,  and  not  to  be  expressed  in 
speech.1  The  former — the  Logos  or  mediator  between 
the  supreme  God  and  the  world — is  invested  with  those 
personal  attributes  which  characterize  the  God  of  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures,  and  to  him  are  referred  those  several 
passages  of  Scripture  in  which  God  is  spoken  of  as  holding 
direct  intercourse  with  man.2  Whether  Philo  really 
intends  to  represent  the  supreme  God  and  the  Logos  as 
two  numerically  distinct  beings,  is  a  matter  of  dispute 
among  his  commentators,3  and  indeed  in  the  case  of  a 
writer  so  extremely  fanciful  and  unsystematic  it  is  difficult 
to  say  whether  he  had  any  definite  theory  on  this  subject 
at  all.  The  same  may  be  also  said  of  his  description  of 
the  Divine  powers  or  Svvd/jLsis,  which  are  sometimes 
described  in  language  which  seems  to  represent  them  as 
distinct  personal  beings,  sometimes  appear  to  be  merely 
poetical  personifications  of  the  several  attributes  of  God, 
as  manifested  in  relation  to  the  world.4  But  it  must  at 
least  be  admitted  that  his  language  is  such  as  to  suggest 
to  subsequent  speculators,  aided,  as  we  shall  see,  by 

1  Legis    Alleg.    i.    c.    13,    p.    50  and    by   Dorner,    Person    of    Christ 
&TTOIOS  d  6e6s:  Ibid.  c.   15,    p.  53  Set  i.  p.  27  (Eng.  Trans.)  and   Note  A, 
yap  ^7€t<r0cu  ical    &ITOIOV    airrbv    eivai  against  Gfrorer,  Dahne,    Liicke,  and 
teal  atyOaprov  Kal  &Tpfirrov.  De   Somn.  the   majority   of  recent  critics.     An 
i.  39,  p.  655,  \e/76<r0at  70^  ov  irtyvKev,  intermediate  view  is  taken  by  Zeller, 
a\\a   fj.6vov   eivai  rb  ov.     Cf.  De  Tit.  Philosophic  der  Griechen,  III.  2,  p.  324, 
Contempl.  c.    1,  p.   472 ;    Quod  Deus  and    to    some    extent    by  Professor 
Immut.  c.  11,  p.  281.  Jowett,  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  I.  p.  484 

2  Cf.     Kitto's     Cyclopedia     (3rd  (2nd  edit.). 

edit.),  Art.  '  Philosophy,'  p.  526,  and  4  Cf.  J.  G.  Miiller,  Art.  '  Philo  '  in 

the  references  there  given.  Herzog,  vol.   XI.    p.    589  ;    Gfrorer 

3  The  negative  is  maintained  by  Philo,  vol.  I.  pp.  151,  155  seq. 
Burton,  Bampton  Lectures   Note   93, 


18  SOURCES  OF  GNOSTICISM.  LECT.  ir. 

similar  ideas  borrowed  from  other  sources,  the  theory  of  a 
series  of  intermediate  spiritual  beings  interposed  between 
the  supreme  God  and  the  visible  world,  beginning  with 
the  Logos,  as  the  highest,  but  extending  itself  through 
a  succession  of  subordinate  powers  of  no  definite  number 
or  relation  to  each  other,  but  capable  of  increase  ad 
libitum  according  to  the  fancy  of  the  philosopher  for  the 
time  being,  or  the  exigencies  of  the  theory  which  he  may 
happen  to  be  occupied  with.1 

But  the  Gnostic  philosophers  differed  from  Philo  in  one 
important  particular.  Philo,  as  a  Jew,  had  merely  to 
ada.pt  his  system  to  the  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment :  the  Gnostics,  dealing  with  the  Christian  revelation, 
had  to  extend  the  theory  so  as  to  connect  it  with  some 
kind  of  an  acknowledgment  of  the  person  and  work  of 
Christ.  The  Gnostics  professed  to  acknowledge  Christ  as 
in  some  manner  the  Redeemer  of  the  world ;  but  from  what 
does  he  redeem  it  ?  Not  from  sin  in  the  proper  sense  of 
the  term ;  not  from  the  evil  entailed  upon  man  by  his  own 
voluntary  transgression  of  God's  law,  for,  under  the 
Gnostic  hypothesis,  there  is  no  free  will  in  man,  and 
therefore  no  voluntary  transgression.  The  evil  from 
which  Christ  redeems  must  therefore  be  evil  of  another 
kind — something  not  introduced  into  the  world  by  man's 
disobedience,  but  something  inherent  in  the  constitution 
of  the  world  itself.  The  evil  that  is  in  the  world  must 
therefore  be  due  to  the  Creator  of  the  world ;  it  must  be 
inherent  in  the  world  from  the  beginning — the  result  of 
some  weakness  at  least,  or  some  ignorance,  if  not  of  some 

1  Thus  in  the  De  Cherub,  c.  9,  we  is  identified  with  the  supreme  God. 

have   three  powers  all  distinct  from  InDe  Mut.  Nom.  c.  4,  wehaveaSiWjius 

the  supreme  God,  symbolized  by  the  euepyert/cirj  added  to  the  /3acriAi/c^  and 

two  cherubim  and  the  flaming  sword.  TroiTj-rt/o?.     In  De  Prof.  cc.  18,  19,  six 

In  De  Abrahamo  c.  21,  there  are  three  powers  are  invented  to  answer  to  the 

powers  (the  three  beings  who  appeared  six  cities  of  refuge, 
to  Abraham  at  Mamre),  one  of  whom 


LECT.  ii.  SOURCES  OF  GNOSTICISM. 

positive  malignity -concurring  in  its  first  formation.  The 
Demiurge  is  thus  necessarily  lowered  from  the  position 
which  he  holds  in  the  system  of  Philo,  as  next  to,  if  not  one 
with,  the  supreme  God.  The  Redeemer  of  the  world  must 
stand  higher  than  the  Creator ;  for  he  is  sent  to  remedy 
the  imperfection  of  the  Creator's  work :  there  will  be  a 
gulf  between  them  of  greater  or  less  extent,  according 
to  the  amount  of  evil  which  the  philosopher  may  believe 
himself  to  have  discovered  in  the  world,  and  the  conse- 
quent amount  of  imperfection  which  he  may  think  proper 
to  attribute  to  its  maker,  and  this  gulf  may  be  filled  up  by 
any  number  of  intermediate  beings,  forming  so  many  suc- 
cessive links  in  the  chain  of  descent  from  good  to  evil.  It  is 
obvious  that  under  a  theory  of  this  kind  the  Jewish  religion 
arid  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  may  be  regarded 
as  standing  in  either  of  two  different  relations  towards 
Christianity,  or  rather  towards  the  philosophy  which  takes 
the  place  of  Christianity.  The  Creator  of  the  world,  the 
God  of  the  Jewish  people,  may  be  regarded  merely  as 
an  imperfect,  or  as  a  positively  malignant  being.  He 
may  be  an  emanation  from  the  supreme  God,  imperfect  in 
proportion  to  his  remoteness  from  the  source  of  existence, 
but  still  a  servant  of  God,  working  under  the  Divine  law 
and  accomplishing  the  Divine  purpose  (if  we  may  venture 
allusively  to  employ  the  term  purpose  in  relation  to  an 
impersonal  being) — accomplishing  the  Divine  purpose  it 
may  be  blindly  and  ignorantly,  yet  in  subordination  to  a 
higher  and  better  power.  Or,  on  the  other  hand,  he  may 
be  a  being  hostile  to  God ;  either  the  offspring  of  some 
power  alien  from  God,  and  acting  in  opposition  to  the 
Divine  purpose — of  an  original  evil  principle,  the  head  of  a 
kingdom  of  darkness  in  antagonism  to  the  kingdom  of 
light ;  or  at  least  one  so  far  degenerated  from  the 

c2 


20  SOURCES  OF  GNOSTICISM.  IECT.  n. 

original  source  of  good  that  his  imperfection  becomes  in 
result  an  actual  contrariety  to  good. 

Two  opposite  views  may  thus  be  taken  of  the  Jewish 
religion.  It  may  be  an  imperfect  preparation  for  a 
Christian  philosophy,  which  the  latter  is  designed  to 
supersede  by  completing,  or  it  may  be  a  system  funda- 
mentally hostile  to  Christianity,  which  the  latter  is  de- 
signed to  combat  and  overthrow.  On  account  of  this 
difference,  the  Gnostic  schools  have  sometimes  been 
divided  into  the  two  classes  of  Judaizing  and  anti-Jewish 
Gnostics ;  the  one  regarding  it  as  the  mission  of  Christ 
to  complete  an  imperfect  revelation,  the  other  supposing 
Him  to  be  sent  to  deliver  the  world  from  the  bondage  of 
an  evil  creator  and  governor.  How  far  this  distinction 
may  be  considered  as  furnishing  the  ground  for  an  accu- 
rate classification  of  the  several  Gnostic  systems,  will  be 
considered  hereafter.  At  present  we  must  endeavour  to 
complete  our  sketch  of  the  philosophical  sources  of 
Gnosticism,  by  recurring  to  the  second  great  problem, 
which  its  professors  applied  to  the  interpretation  of 
Christianity — the  problem  of  the  Origin  of  Evil. 

The  origin  of  evil  holds  a  very  subordinate  place,  if  in- 
deed it  can  be  said  to  have  been  considered  at  all,  in  the  phi- 
losophy of  Greece.  The  Greek  mind  was  rather  disposed  to 
view  the  world  in  the  light  of  an  evolution  from  below, 
than  in  that  of  an  emanation  and  descent  from  above.1 
This  may  be  seen  not  only  in  the  poetical  cosmogonies 
and  theogonies  which  preceded  philosophy  proper,  evolving 
the  world  and  even  the  gods  from  a  primitive  chaos  and 
darkness,  but  also  in  the  first  efforts  of  philosophy  itself— 
in  the  hylozoism  of  the  early  lonians,  evolving  the 
higher  forms  of  existence  from  the  action  of  some  primi- 
tive material  element,  and  again,  after  this  view  had  been 

1  Cf.  Baur,  Die  Chr.  G-nosis  p.  30. 


LECT.  n.  SOURCES  OF  GNOSTICISM.  21 

superseded  by  the   influence   of  the   mathematical  and 

metaphysical     abstractions    of    the    Pythagoreans    and 

Eleatics,   in   its    revival    in   a   modified    form    in    later 

theories,  in  the  four  elements  of  Empedocles,  in  the  o/itoO 

Trdwra  of  Anaxagoras,  in   the  atoms   of  Leucippus   and 

Democritus.     Even   the   metaphysical   schools   of  Greek 

philosophy,    commencing    their    speculations    with    the 

highest  and  purest  abstractions,  cannot  be  said  to  have  "in 

any  way  grappled  with  the  problem  of  the  existence  of 

evil.     The  Eleatics  contented  themselves  with  little  more 

than  the  dogmatic  assertion  that  the  One  alone  exists, 

and  that  plurality  and  change  have  no  real  being.     Plato, 

though  taking  a  transient  glance  at  the  problem  in  that 

passage  of  the  Eepublic  where  he  lays  it  down  as  a  rule 

of  teaching  concerning  God,  that  he  is  not  the  cause  of  all 

things,  but  only  of  those  things  that  are  good,1  and  again 

in   the   mythical  utterance   of    the   prophet    of  destiny 

towards  the  close  of  the  book,  air  la  g\o//,«/ou,  Osos  avafaios,* 

cannot  be  said  to  have  fairly  grappled  with  the  positive 

side  of  the  question,  what  is  the  cause  of  evil,  and  how 

can  it  come  into  the  world  against  the  will  of  God  ?     In 

the    cosmogony  of  the    Tirnseus,  though  the    Demiurge 

is  represented  as  forming  the  world  out  of  pre-existing 

matter,  yet  this  matter  itself  is  so  little  regarded  as  a 

cause  of  evil,  as  something  in  its  own  nature  hostile  to 

the  Deity,  that  on  the  contrary  we  are   told  that  the 

world,  as  thus  made,  was  an  image  of  the  eternal  gods, 

and  that  the  Father  who  made  it  admired  it  and  was 

rejoiced.3     In  other  passages,  it  is  true,  a  darker  side  of 

the  world  makes  its  appearance.     God  is  said  to  complete 

the  idea  of  good  in  the  wor^ld  as  far  as  is  possible  ;  4  a 


1  Eesp.  ii.  p.  380,  (j^iriivruva'iTi.ov  8  Timaus  p.  37. 

rlv  Ge6v,  aXXa  rwv  ayadwv.  *  Ibid.  p.  30  A:  cf.  p.  46  c. 

I  Ibid.  x.  p.  617. 


22  SOURCES  OF  GNOSTICISM.  LECT.  n. 

struggle  is  intimated  as  having  taken  place  between 
reason  and  necessity,  the  actual  constitution  of  the  world 
being  compounded  of  both.1  In  other  dialogues *  mention 
is  made  of  a  something  in  the  world  which  must  always 
be  opposed  to  good,3  and  of  the  bodily  element  in  the 
composition  of  the  world  which  was  disorderly  before 
it  entered  into  this  present  world,  and  hinders  it  from 
perfectly  accomplishing  the  teaching  of  its  Maker  and 
Father.  But  such  hints  as  these,  scattered  and  incidental 
as  they  are,  though  they  gave  occasion  to  Aristotle  to  say 
that  Plato  regarded  matter  as  a  source  of  evil,4  show 
that  the  problem  was  one  which  the  mind  of  the  philo- 
sopher only  glanced  at  transiently  and  unwillingly,  which 
he  was  glad  to  keep  as  far  as  possible  in  the  background 
of  his  teaching,  and  of  which  he  never  attempted  a 
systematic  solution.  Aristotle,  while  acknowledging  the 
existence  of  evil  as  a  fact,  and  dealing  with  it  practically 
in  his  ethical  doctrines  and  precepts,  pays  but  little 
j  attention  to  the  metaphysical  problem  of  its  origin. 
Neither  in  the  list  of  questions  which  he  proposes  to 
discuss  in  his  Metaphysics,  nor  in  the  body  of  the  work, 
does  this  inquiry  appear ;  and  his  conception  of  matter 
as  of  a  merely  potential  and  passive  nature  is  remote 
from  that  point  of  view  in  which  it  is  contemplated  as  an 
actual  cause  of  evil.  The  Stoics  indeed  may  be  said  to 
have  partially  considered  the  question  from  their  own 
point  of  view ;  but  their  pantheism,  and  their  theory  of 
the  perfection  of  the  world  as  a  whole,  compelled  them  to 
treat  it  only  in  a  partial  and  superficial  aspect.  Their 

1  Timaus  p.  48  A.  omit  those  passages  in  which  Plato 

2  Theatetus  p.  176  A.  ,   speaks  of  the  human  body   as    the 

3  Politicus  p.  273   A.     Cf.  Zeller,  cause   of  the   evil  of  the   soul  (e.g. 
II.  1,  p.  487.  Phado  pp.   66,  79).     These  do   not 

4  Metaph.  i.  6     CTI  Se  T^V  TOV  e5  refer  to  the  origin  of  evil  in  general, 
*cal  TOV  KttKws   alTiav  TOIS  tr-rot^e lots  but  to  its  particular  working  in  a  defl- 
a7re'5w/cey     e/farepots    eKarepai/.       We  nite  organization, 


LECT.  ii.  SOURCES  OF  GNOSTICISM.  23 

inquiries  were  not  so  much  directed  to  an  explanation  of 
the  origin  of  evil,  as  to  attempts  to  reconcile  the  fact  of  its 
existence  with  the  supposed  perfection  of  the  universe, 
and  their  conclusions  were  for  the  most  part  such  as  the 
principles  of  their  philosophy  would  naturally  suggest  and 
which  modern  writers  have  sometimes  borrowed  without 
being  fully  aware  of  their  tendency — namely,  that  the 
imperfection  of  part  is  necessary  to  the  perfection  of  the 
whole ; l  that  some  things  which  appear  to  be  evil  are  not 
so  in  reality ; 2  that  evil  is  necessary  to  the  existence  of 
good,  because  one  of  two  contraries  cannot  exist  without 
the  other.3  In  such  positions  as  these,  we  see  the  germ  of 
the  questions  discussed  in  works  like  Leibnitz's  Theodicee, 
or  Pope's  Essay  on  Man.  They  are  not  philosophical 
inquiries  intended  to  explain  how  evil  came  into  the 
world,  but  examinations  of  difficulties  occasioned  by  the 
fact  of  its  existence  when  viewed  in  relation  to  other 
facts  or  doctrines. 

The  slight  and  cursory  notice  which  this  question 
received  in  Greek  philosophy  may  to  some  extent  be  ac- 
counted for  by  the  character  of  the  national  mind.  The 
Greek  was  of  all  men  least  disposed  to  look  011  the  gloomy 
or  the  negative  side  of  the  visible  world  :  his  feelings 
opened  themselves  to  all  that  was  bright  and  beautiful 

1  So     Chrysippus     in     Plutarch,       Of.  Zeller,  III.  l,p.  199. 

De   Stoic.  Sep.  c.    44    TeAeop  IJLCV    6  a  Chrysippus     iu     Plutarch,     De 

Kovuios  ffw/j-d  eVnv,  ou  re'Aea  5e  TO  rov  Stoic.  Rep,  C.   35  'H  Se  KOKIO  irpbs    TO. 

Kdff/jLov    yuepTj,    T(£    irpbs    rb   o\ov    irias  Sfiva  (ru/xTTTw/xaTa  JfStoV  Tiva  exe l  h.6yov. 

%Xeiv    Ka^    /^    Ka®'    airra    eTi/at.        Cf.  yiyerai  pey  yap  KalavTfjirots  Kara  rbvT^s 

Zeller,  III.  1,  p.  160.  So  Pope,  Essay  Qvaews    \6yov    Kal,    iV    of/Vcos    €&ra>, 

OH  Man '.  axpficrrus  yivsrai  irpbs  TO  6'Aa,  ovre  yap 

'  All  discord,  harmony  not  understood ;  rayada  fy:  Chrysippus   in   A.    Gell. 

All  partial  evil,  universal  good.'  vi.  1  '  Nam  cum  bona  malis  contraria 

2  e.g.    pain   and  physical   evil  in  sunt,  utra^ue  necessarium  est  oppo- 
general.      Cf.    Seneca,   Epist.   85,  30  sita  inter  se  et  quasi  mutuo  adverse 
'  Dolor  et  paupertas  deteriorem  non  quseque  fulta  nisu  consistere :  nullum 
faciunt ;  ergo  mala   non  sunt ' ;  and  adeo    contrarium   est  sine   contrario 
the    theological    application    of    the  altero.' 

same  position  by  M.  Aurelius,  ii.  11. 


24.  SOURCES  OF  GNOSTICISM.  LECT.  n. 

and  beneficial  in  nature ;  his  creative  fancy  imagined 
gods  for  itself  in  the  sun  and  moon  and  stars  of  heaven, 
in  the  mountains  and  groves  and  streams  of  his  native 
land,  in  the  corn  and  wine  and  fruits  of  the  earth  which 
contributed  to  his  enjoyment.1  Such  a  temperament  was 
not  likely  to  be  impressed  with  an  overwhelming  sense  of 
the  evil  that  is  in  the  world,  nor  to  tinge  the  national 
philosophy  with  dark  representations  of  the  inherent 
malignity  of  matter. 

Yery  different  was  the  tone  of  thought  in  the  East, 
where  philosophy,  far  more  than  in  Greece,  was  identified 
with  religion ;  where,  consequently,  the  presence  of  evil 
was  more  keenly  felt,  and  theories  concerning  its  nature 
and  origin  formed  the  very  keynote  of  philosophical 
speculation.  Two  principal  theories  may  be  specified  as 
endeavouring  in  different  ways  to  account  for  the  exist- 
ence of  such  a  phenomenon  :  the  dualistic  theory,  which 
proceeded  on  the  hypothesis  of  an  original  struggle  be- 
tween two  antagonistic  principles  of  good  and  evil,  and 
the  emanation  theory,  which  supposes  a  gradual  deteriora- 
tion by  successive  descents  from  the  primitive  source  of 
good.  The  former  may  be  distinguished  as  the  Persian, 

1  Da  der  Dichtung  zauberische  Hiille 
Sich  noch  lieblich  urn  die  Wahrheit  wand, 
Durch  die  Schopfung  floss  da  Lebensfiille 
Und  was  nie  empfinden  wird,  empfand. 
An  der  Liebe  Busen  sie  zu  driicken, 
Gab  man  hohern  Adel  der  Natur, 
Alles  wies  den  eingeweihten  Blicken, 
Alles  eines  Grottes  Spur. 

Wo  jetzt  nur,  wie  unsre  Weisen  sagen, 
Seelenlos  ein  Feuerball  sich  dreht, 
Lenkte  damals  seinen  goldnen  Wagen 
Helios  in  stiller  Majestat. 
Diese  Hohen  fullten  Oreaden, 
Eine  Dryas  lebt'  in  jenem  Baum, 
Aus  der  Urnen  lieblicher  Najaden 
Sprang  der  Strome  Silberschaum. 

SCHILLER,  Die  Goiter  Griechenlands. 


LECT,  ii.  SOURCES  OF  GNOSTICISM.  25 

the  latter  as  the  Indian  theory.  I  do  not  mean  that  the 
emanation  doctrine  is  peculiar  to  India ;  on  the  contrary, 
it  holds  a  prominent  position  in  the  Persian  religious 
philosophy  likewise,  as  indeed  in  most  speculations  of 
Oriental  origin ;  l  but  in  the  Persian  philosophy  the 
hypothesis  of  emanations  appears  as  a  consequence  of  the 
existence  of  evil,  while  in  the  Indian  philosophy  it  is  the 
cause  of  it.  The  one  assumes  the  existence  of  two  con- 
flicting powers  of  good  and  evil,  each  of  which  gives  rise 
to  subordinate  beings  of  similar  nature  assigned  to  assist 
in  the  conflict.  The  other  supposes  one  original  exist- 
ence, of  the  highest  and  most  abstract  purity,  and  repre- 
sents the  origin  of  evil  as  the  final  result  of  successive 
degrees  of  lower  and  less  perfect  being. 

The  Zoroastriaii  religious  system,  which,  commencing 
according  to  tradition  in  Bactria,  one  of  the  eastern  pro- 
vinces of  the  Persian  empire,  became  ultimately  the 
received  religion  of  Persia  in  general,  is  involved  in  much 
obscurity  as  regards  the  period,  as  well  as  the  manner  of 
its  origin.  Whether  Zoroaster  (Zerdusht  or  Zarathustra), 
its  reputed  founder,  was  a  historical  or  a  mythical  per- 
sonage,2 whether  he  flourished,  according  to  one  favourite 
opinion,  in  the  reign  of  Darius  Hystaspis,  or,  as  others 
maintain,  at  a  much  earlier  period,3  whether  his  religious 
system  was  wholly  original  or  the  reformation  of  a  pre- 
vious belief,  are  points  still  under  controversy,  and  about 
which  it  is  unsafe  to  pronounce  any  decided  opinion.3 
But  the  system  itself,  according  to  what  appears  to  have 
been  its  earliest  form,  was  based  on  the  assumption  of  the 
existence  of  two  original  and  independent  powers  of  good 

1  Cf.  Baur,  Die  Chr.  Gnosis  p.  30.  3  For  different  theories  concerning 

2  Niebuhr  (Kleine  Schriften,  vol.  I.  the  age  and  work  of  Zoroaster  see 
p.  200)  regards  him  as  mythical.   See  Milman,  Hist,  of  Christianity,  vol.  I. 
Art.  » Zoroaster '  in  Smith's  Diet,  of  p.  63  seq. 

Biography. 


26  SOURCES  OF  GNOSTICISM.  IECT.  n. 

and  evil,  or  light  and  darkness — Ormuzd  (ATiura  Mazda, 
the  wise  Lord)  and  Ahriman  (Angra  Mainyus,  the 
wicked  spirit).  Another  account  of  the  doctrine  repre- 
sents both  these  beings  as  the  offspring  of  a  higher  prin- 
ciple called  Zarvana  Akarana  (c  boundless  time '),  but  this 
appears  to  be  a  later  refinement  of  the  theory  which 
originally  regarded  the  two  principles  as  co-existent  from 
the  beginning  in  eternal  antagonism.1  Each  of  these 
hostile  powers  is  of  equal  strength,  each  supreme  within 
his  own  domain.  Ormuzd  dwells  in  the  region  of  perfect 
light,  Ahriman  in  that  of  perfect  darkness,  and  between 
them  is  an  interval  of  empty  space,  separating  the  one 
from  the  other.  Each  becomes  at  length  aware  of  the 
other's  existence,  and  of  the  necessity  of  a  contest  between 
them.  For  three  thousand  years  each  is  occupied  in  the 
creation  of  subordinate  powers  to  assist  him  in  the 
struggle.2  Thus  there  arose  from  Ormuzd  three  orders  of 
pure  spirits  :  first,  the  six  Amshaspands  who  surround  his 
throne,  and  are  his  messengers  to  inferior  beings ;  then 
the  twenty-eight  Izeds,  together  with  their  chief  Mithra ; 
and  finally,  the  innumerable  host  of  Fervers,  a  kind  of 
personification  of  the  creative  ideas,  the  archetypes  of  the 
sensible  world.3  In  opposition  to  these,  Ahriman  pro- 
duces an  equal  number  of  Devs  or  evil  spirits.  After 
these  creations  Ormuzd  is  represented  as  having  artfully 
induced  Ahriman  to  agree  to  a  further  truce,  in  conse- 
quence of  which  the  latter  subsides  into  complete  inac- 
tivity for  three  thousand  years  longer,  during  which  time 
Ormuzd,  with  the  assistance  of  his  subordinate  powers, 


1  Spiegel,    Art.    '  Parsismus '    in  vol.  I.  p.  117.    The  six  Amshaspands, 
Herzog's  Encyklopadie,  XI.  pp.  117,  together  with   Ormuzd  and  Mithra, 
119.  and  cf.  Milman,  Hist,  of  Chris-  seem  to  correspond  to  the  Valentinian 
tianity,  vol.  I.  p.  69.  Ogdoad.  The  twenty-eight  Izeds,  with 

2  Ibid.  Ormuzd  and  Mithra,  answer  to  the 
8  See  Matter,  Hist,  de  Gnosticisme,  thirty 


LECT.  ii.  SOURCES  OF  GNOSTICISM.  27 

proceeds  to  create  the  material  world — first  tlie  heavens, 
then  water,  then  the  earth,  then  the  trees,  then  cattle, 
and  finally  men.  The  earth  is  situated  in  the  inter- 
mediate space  between  the  kingdoms  of  light  and  dark- 
ness, and  becomes  ultimately  the  battle-field  of  the  strife 
between  the  two  powers.  At  the  end  of  the  three  thou- 
sand years  of  inaction,  Ahrinian  obtains  a  footing  on  the 
earth,  and  attempts  to  counteract  the  work  of  Ormuzd  by 
producing  creatures  of  a  contrary  kind,  noxious  animals 
and  poisonous  plants.  He  also  led  away  from  their 
allegiance  the  first  pair  of  mankind,  and  inflicted  upon 
them  various  evils,  such  as  hunger,  sleep,  age,  sickness, 
and  death.  This  struggle  between  good  and  evil  upon  the 
earth  is  to  continue  for  six  thousand  years,  during  which 
the  lower  order  of  the  material  creation,  inanimate  as 
well  as  animate,  are  good  or  evil  of  necessity,  according 
to  the  source  from  which  they  spring.  Man  alone  has 
the  power  of  choosing  for  himself  the  one  side  or  the 
other,  and  partaking  of  good  or  evil,  of  reward  or  punish- 
ment, according  to  his  choice.1 

In  reading  the  above  cosmogony  it  is  impossible  not 
to  be  struck  with  the  resemblance  of  many  of  its  details 
to  the  Mosaic  narrative  of  the  Creation  and  the  Fall,3  not- 
withstanding the  wide  departure  of  its  dualistic  hypo- 
thesis from  the  pure  monotheism  of  the  Hebrew  faith. 
The  creation  of  the  world  by  the  good  spirit;  the 
order  of  creation  in  its  several  parts,  ending  with  man ; 
the  subsequent  intrusion  of  the  spirit  of  evil ;  his  seduc- 
tion of  the  first  pair  of  human  beings ;  the  evils  which  he 
brings  upon  the  earth  and  upon  men ;  are  points  of  re- 
semblance which  seem  to  warrant  the  conclusion  that  a 

1  Spiegel,    Art.    '  Parsismus,'    in  on  the  creation,  government,  and  end 

Herzog's  EncyJclopddie  p.  118.      The  of  the  world. 

account  is  chiefly  taken  from  the  Per-  2  Cf.  Franck,  La  Kabbale  p,  350 

sian  work  called  Bundehcsh,  a  treatise  sea. 


28  SOURCES  OF  GNOSTICISM.  LECT.  n. 

modification  at  least,  if  not  the  original  formation  of  the 
Zoroastrian  system,  is  due  to  a  period  subsequent  to  the 
intercourse  between  the  two  nations  brought  about  by  the 
Jewish  captivity.  Whatever  antiquity  different  critics 
may  be  disposed  to  ascribe  to  the  oral  traditions  on  which 
the  religion  of  the  Zendavesta  is  based,  it  is  admitted  that 
the  written  records  in  which  it  is  now  contained  cannot 
for  the  most  part  claim  a  higher  antiquity  than  the  rise 
of  the  Sassanid  dynasty  in  the  third  century  after  Christ.1 
How  much  of  the  earlier  tradition  is  primitive,  and  what 
accretions  it  may  have  received  in  the  course  of  time,  it  is 
impossible,  in  the  absence  of  written  documents,  to  decide 
with  any  certainty ;  but  perhaps  the  different  theories 
concerning  the  age  of  Zoroaster  and  the  introduction  of 
his  religious  system  may  be  in  some  degree  reconciled 
with  each  other,  if  we  suppose  a  reformation  of  the  reli- 
gion to  have  taken  place  in  the  reign  of  Darius  Hystaspis,2 
a  supposition  which  will  help  to  conciliate  the  traditions 
of  the  antiquity  of  the  first  origin  of  the  religion  with  the 
traces  which  it  bears  in  its  later  form  of  the  influence  of 
the  sacred  books  of  the  Hebrew  captives. 

This  suspicion  receives  some  confirmation  when*  we 
compare  the  Persian  system  with  one  to  which  in  its 
original  form  it  was  probably  nearly  related — the  religious 
philosophy  of  India.  If  the  affinity  between  the  Zend 
and  the  Sanscrit  languages,  and  the  similarity  in  some 
of  the  legends  and  traditions  of  the  two  nations,  indicate 

1  According  to  the  Persian  tradi-  Ardeshir  I  (Bleeck,  Avesta,  Introduc- 
tion, Alexander  caused  most  of  their  tion  p.  x ;   Erskine  quoted  by  Mil- 
earlier  sacred  books  to  be  translated  man,  I.  p.  65),  though  the  document 
into  Greek,  and  then  destroyed  the  from  which  it  was  compiled  may  be 
originals.    It  is  probable  at  least,  that  older  in  writing  as  certainly  in  oral 
a  great  part  of  them  were  lost  after  tradition.        The     other     books    are 
Alexander's  conquest.      See   Spiegel,  mostly  later.    See  Spiegel,  p.  128. 
p.  127.     The  collection  which  consti-  2  See  Milman,   Hist,   of  Christi- 
'  tutes  the  present  written  text  of  the  anity,  vol.  I.  p.  64. 
Avesta  is  not  earlier  than  the  time  of 


LECT.  n.  .  SOURCES  OF  GNOSTICISM.  29 

a  common  origin  of  their  religious  beliefs,1  the  differences 
between  these  two  beliefs  in  their  more  developed  stages 
no  less  indicate  a  considerable  change  in  one  or  the  other 
at  a  later  period.  The  Persian  system,  as  we  have  seen, 
is  dualistic ;  the  Indian  is  a  monotheism,  pushed  to  the 
extreme  of  pantheism,  and  even  (strange  as  such  a  de-  / 
velopment  may  seem)  of  atheism.  In  the  Persian  scheme 
the  source  of  evil  is  spiritual ;  in  the  Indian  it  is  material. 
Evil  itself  in  the  one  is  a  terrible  reality ;  in  the  other,  as 
in  all  consistent  pantheistic  schemes,  it  is  a  mere  appear- 
ance and  an  illusion.  In  the  Persian  doctrine  matter 
itself  is  not  essentially  evil;  it  is  the  production  of  a 
beneficent  being,  and  the  object  into  which  it  enters  may 
be  good  or  evil  according  to  the  power  by  which  they  are 
produced.  In  the  Indian  system  matter  is  the  root  of 
all  evil,  and  the  great  aim  of  religion  is  to  free  men 
from  its  contamination,  even  at  the  cost  of  annihilation 
itself. 

Of  the  two  great  divisions  of  the  Indian  religion, 
Brahmanism  and  Buddhism,  the  latter  is  that  with  which 
we  are  chiefly  concerned  as  the  channel  through  which 
Indian  belief  and  speculation  obtained  an  influence  in 
other  countries.  The  Brahmanical  religion  was  founded 
upon  the  total  isolation  of  the  Indian  people  and  its 
castes,  and  admitted  of  no  communion  with  other  nations  ; 
the  Buddhist  faith  was  designed  for  all  mankind,  and  its 
disciples  were  zealous  and  successful  propagandists.2  The 
principal  points  of  contact  however  between  Indian 
philosophy  and  Gnosticism  may  be  regarded  as  common  to 
both  branches  of  the  former.  These  are,  (1)  the  doctrine 
of  the  emanation  of  the  world  from  the  one  absolute  ex- 


1    Bleeck,     Avesta,     Introduction  2  Cf.  Kitter,  Hist,  of  Philosophy 

pp.  ix,  x ;  cf.  Milman,  Hist,  of  Chris-      I.  p.  63 ;  M.  Miiller,  Buddhism  and 
tianity  I.  p.  66.  Buddhist  Pilgrims  p.  22. 


30  SOURCES  OF  GNOSTICISM.  LECT.  n. 

istence,  and  of  its  final  reabsorption  into  that  existence  ; l 
(2)   the  doctrine  of  the  inherent  evil,  and  at  the  same 
time  of  the  unreality  of  matter ; 2  (3)  the  doctrine  of  the 
antagonism  between  spirit  and  matter,  and  the  practical 
consequence,  that  the  highest  aim  of  religion  is  to  free  the 
soul  from  the  contamination  of  matter,  and  to  raise  it  to 
a  final  absorption  in   the  being   of  the   absolute.3     The 
Buddhist  however    carried  his    metaphysical  abstraction 
to  a  higher  point  even  than  the  Brahman.     While  the 
Bralmf  of  the  orthodox  Hindu  philosophy,  the  one  sole 
absolute  substance,  the  ground  and  reality  of  all  things, 
is  represented  as  simple  existence,4  the  first  principle  of 
the  Buddhist   religion   is  carried  a  step   higher  still  in 
abstraction,  and  identified  with  pure  nothing.     According 
to  the  Buddhist  creed  nothing  is,  and  all  seeming  existence 
is  illusion,  the  offspring  of  ignorance,  which  true  knowledge 
resolves  into  nothing.5     The  highest  end  of  human  life 
is  to  escape  from  pain  by  annihilation ;  the  highest  virtue 
is  that  which  prepares  the  soul  for  the  knowledge  which 
is  to  end  in  annihilation.6   In  order  to  overcome  ignorance, 
the  cause  of  seeming  existence,  and  desire,  the  cause  of 
ignorance,  the  votary  of  Buddhism  is  bidden  to  practise 
the  most  rigid  asceticism  and  to  devote  himself  to  the  most 
intense  meditation.     By  this  process  he  is  gradually  to 
extinguish  desire,  sensation,  thought,  feeling,  even  con- 
sciousness itself,  till  he  finally  arrives  at  complete  rest 
in  complete  extinction  (Nirvana,  literally  'blowing  out')fv 
the  soul  being  not  even,   as  in  the   Brahman   doctrine, 
absorbed  as  a  drop  in  the  ocean,  but  in  the  literal  meaning 

1  Cf .  Milman,  Hist,  of  Christianity  Philos.  der  Religion  (  Werlce,  XI.  p.  35). 
I.  p.  62.  See  St.   Hilaire  as   quoted  by   Max 

2  Cf.  Baur,  Die  Chr.  Gnosis  p.  54 ;  Miiller,  Buddhism  etc.  p.  20. 
Milman,  vol.  II.  p.  34.  5  M.  Miiller,  Buddhism  etc.  pp.  14, 

8  Ibid.  p.  58.  19. 

4  <Das  leere  Wesen.'     Cf.  Hegel,  6  Ibid.  p.  15. 


LECT.  n.  SOURCES   OF  GNOSTICISM.  31 

of  the  phrase,  blown  out  like  a  lamp.1  The  Gnostic  systems 
fall  far  short  of  this  gigantic  heroism  of  absurdity ;  yet  its 
influence  in  a  diluted  form  may  undoubtedly  be  traced  in 
the  antagonism  which  they  maintained  to  exist  between 
matter  and  spirit,  in  the  deliverance  of  spirit  by  asceti- 
cism, and  in  the  contrast  between  ignorance  and  knowledge, 
the  one  the  source  of  illusion  and  misery,  the  other  the 
sole  means  of  obtaining  deliverance  and  repose.2 

The  influence  of  the  Persian  religious  philosophy  may 
be  most  clearly  traced  in  those  forms  of  Gnosticism  which 
sprang  up  in  Syria,  a  country  which  both  from  geographical 
position  and  historical  circumstances  must  have  had  fre- 
quent means  of  communication  with  the  head-quarters  of 
the  Magian  system.8  The  sects  which  sprang  up  in  this 
country  chiefly  based  their  teaching  on  the  dualistic  as- 
sumption of  an  active  spiritual  principle  and  kingdom  of 
evil  or  darkness,  opposed  to  the  kingdom  of  goodness  or 
light.  The  Indian  influence  in  a  modified  form  may  chiefly 
be  traced  in  those  forms  of  Gnosticism  which  sprang  up 
in  Egypt,  which  appears  to  have  been  visited  by  Buddhist 
missionaries  from  India  within  two  generations  from  the 
time  of  Alexander  the  Great,4  and  where  we  may  find 
permanent  traces  of  Buddhist  influence,  established  at  all 
events  before  the  Christian  era.  The  Therapeutse  or  con- 
templative monks  of  Egypt,  described  by  Philo,  whom 
Eusebius  by  an  anachronism  confounds  with  the  early 
Christians,  appear  to  have  sprung  from  an  union  of  the 
Alexandrian  Judaism  with  the  precepts  and  modes  of  life 
of  the  Buddhist  devotees,  and  though  their  asceticism  fell 

1  M.  Miiller,   Buddhism  etc.  pp.  *  See  King,  The  Gnostics  and  their 
19,  46.  Remains  p.  23.     The  King  to  whom 

2  Cf.  King,  The  Gnostics  and  their  the  mission   is  attributed  is   Asoka, 
Remains  p.  21.  the      grandson      of       Chaudragupta 

3  Cf.     Gieseler,    Church  History,  (Sandracottus),  the    contemporary  of 
vol.  I.  p.  138  ;  Neander,  Church  His-  Alexander. 

tory,  vol.  II.  p.  13. 


32  SOURCES  OF  GNOSTICISM.  LECT.  n. 

short  of  the  rigour  of  the  Indian  practice,  as  their  religious 
belief  mitigated  the  extravagance  of  the  Indian  speculation, 
yet  in  their  ascetic  life,  in  their  mortification  of  the  body 
and  their  devotion  to  pure  contemplation,  we  may  trace 
at  least  a  sufficient  affinity  to  the  Indian  mystics  to  in- 
dicate a  common  origin.1 

The  principal  sources  of  Gnosticism  may  probably  be 
summed  up  in  these  three.  To  Platonism,  modified  by 
Judaism,  it  owed  much  of  its  philosophical  form  and 
tendencies.  To  the  Dualism  of  the  Persian  religion  it 
owed  one  form  at  least  of  its  speculations  on  the  origin 
and  remedy  of  evil,  and  many  of  the  details  of  its  doctrine 
of  emanations.  To  the  Buddhism  of  India,  modified  again 
probably  by  Platonism,  it  was  indebted  for  the  doctrines 
of  the  antagonism  between  spirit  and  matter  and  the 
unreality  of  derived  existence  (the  germ  of  the  Gnostic 
Docetism),  and  in  part  at  least  for  the  theory  which 
regards  the  universe  as  a  series  of  successive  emanations 
from  the  absolute  Unity.  Other  supposed  sources,  to 
which  Gnosticism  has  with  more  or  less  probability  been 
sometimes  referred,  will  be  noticed  in  my  next  lecture. 

1  On  the  connection  of  the  Thera-  the   Jewish- Alexandrian    philosophy, 

peutse  with  the  Indian  mysticism,  see  see   Dahne,    Judisch-Akx.   Eeligions- 

Milman,  Hist,  of  Christianity,  vol.  II.  Pkilosophie,  vol.  I.  p.  453. 
pp.  37,  41.     On  its  connection  with 


LECT.  in.       CLASSIFICATION  OF  GNOSTIC  SECTS.  33 


LECTUKE  III. 

SOURCES   OP   GNOSTICISM — CLASSIFICATION   OP 
GNOSTIC   SECTS. 

IN  addition  to  the  three  sources  to  which  in  my  last  lec- 
ture I  endeavoured  to  trace  the  origin  of  the  Gnostic  sys- 
tems, namely,  the  Grseco-  Jewish,  philosophy  of  Alexandria 
and  the  religious  systems  of  Persia  and  India,  other  coun- 
tries and  systems  have  been  occasionally  named  as  probable 
tributaries  to  the  stream.  Egypt,  Phoenicia,  China,  have 
all  been  enumerated  by  modern  critics  among  the  pre- 
cursors of  Gnosticism ; l  but  it  may  be  doubted  whether 
anything  can  be  produced  from  the  philosophy  or  religion 
of  these  countries  which  may  not  be  derived  more  directly 
and  with  more  probability  from,  the  sources  previously 
mentioned.  There  remains  however  at  least  one  system 
of  religious  philosophy,  which,  on  account  of  its  close 
affinity  to  the  Gnostic  theories  and  the  possibility,  to  say 
the  least,  of  an  actual  historical  connection  between  it  and 
them,  cannot  be  passed  over  without  a  special  examination 
— I  mean  the  Kabbala,  or  secret  teaching  of  the  Jews. 

The  word  Kabbala  (if  we  may  adopt  a  pronunciation 
which,  though  not  strictly  accurate,  has  at  least  been 
naturalised  in  English) 2  literally  means  reception  or 
received  doctrines,  and,  substituting  the  active  for  the  pas- 
sive relation,  may  be  perhaps  fairly  rendered  tradition,  a 

1  See  Matter,  Hist,  du  Gnosticisme,      of  the  Lake,  has 

livre  i.  ch.  v,  vii,  ix.  'Eager  he  read  whatever  tells 

2  Heb.  ri73j2.    Scott,  in  the  Lady          Of  magic,  cabala,  and  spells.' 

D 


34  SOURCES  OF  GNOSTICISM.  LECT.  in. 

word  more  exactly  corresponding  to  the  Hebrew  M assorah.1 
In  actual  use  it  designates  a  system  of  traditional  and 
partially  at  least  of  esoteric  or  secret  teaching,  which, has 
not  inaptly  been  called  the  Jewish  Metaphysic,2  and  which 
may  be  compared  to  the  Jewish  philosophy  of  Alexandria, 
as  being,  like  it,  an  attempt  to  combine  the  theology  of 
the  Old  Testament  with  a  philosophical  speculation  derived 
from  foreign  sources.  But  while  the  Alexandrian  philo- 
sophy was  cultivated  by  Hellenistic  Jews  and  published 
entirely  in  the  Greek  language,  the  Kabbalistic  doctrines, 
if  we  allow  them  the  same  antiquity,  must  be  regarded  as 
the  peculiar  study  of  the  Jews  of  Palestine,3  and  as  con- 
fined with  equal  exclusiveness  to  the  Hebrew  language.4 
The  principles  also  of  the  two  systems,  notwithstanding 
some  resemblances  in  matters  of  detail,5  must  be  regarded 
as  fundamentally  different.  While  the  Platonic  philo- 
sophy, which  was  the  chief  source  of  the  speculations  of 
Philo,  is,  in  principle  at  least,  a  dualism,  recognising  an 
original  distinction,  and  even  opposition,  between  the 
maker  of  the  world  and  the  matter  out  of  which  it  is  made,6 
the  philosophy  which  the  Kabbalists  attempted  to  blend 
with  the  belief  of  their  fathers  is  in  principle  a  pure 
pantheism,  adopting  as  its  foundation  the  hypothesis  of  an 
absolute  unity — a  God  who  is  at  the  same  time  the  cause, 
the  substance,  and  the  form  of  all  that  exists  and  all  that 


Cf.  Franck  La  Kab-  6  Strictly  speaking,   the  Platonic 

bale,   Preface   p.    1  ;    Ginsburg,    The  philosophy    recognises     three    inde- 

Kabbalah  p.  4.  pendent  principles,  the  Demiurge,  the 

-  Reuss,  Art.   '  Kabbala,'  in  Her-  ideal  world,  and  the  primitive  matter, 

zog's  Encyldop'ddie,  VII.  p.  195.  But  the  ideal  world,  which  was  also  in 

3  Cf.  Franck,  La  Kabbale  p.  270.  its  own  way  recognised  by  the  Kab- 

4  i.e.    the    dialect   of     Jerusalem  bala,  does  not  bear  upon  our  present 
Chaldee    modified    by   Hebrew.     Cf.  comparison,    and  was,  by   the    later 
Franck,  1.  c.  p.  103.  Platonists  at  least,  not  regarded  as  an 

5  e.g.  the  theory  of  ideas,  the  pre-  independent  world,  but  as  existing  in 
existence  and  the  transmigration   of  the  mind  of  the  Deity. 

souls.     See  Franck,  pp.  241,  262. 


LECT.  in.       CLASSIFICATION  OF  GNOSTIC  SECTS.  35 

can  exist.1  The  Kabbala  has  been  asserted  to  be  the  parent 
of  the  philosophy  of  Spinoza ; 2  and  whatever  may  have 
been  the  historical  connection  between  the  two,  the 
similarity  of  their  principles  can  hardly  be  denied.  In 
the  place  of  the  personal  God,  distinct  from  the  world, 
acknowledged  in  the  Old  Testament,  the  Kabbala  sub- 
stitutes the  idea  of  an  universal  and  infinite  substance, 
always  active,  always  thinking,  and  in  the  process  of 
thought  developing  the  universe.  In  the  place  of  a 
material  world,  distinct  from  God  and  created  from 
nothing,  the  Kabbalist  substitutes  the  idea  of  two  worlds, 
the  one  intelligible,  the  other  sensible,  both  being,  not 
substances  distinct  from  God,  but  forms  under  which  the 
divine  substance  manifests  itself.3  Here  we  have  under 
one  aspect,  that  of  the  universal  substance,  the  principle  of 
Spinoza,  under  another,  that  of  the  universal  process,  the 
principle  of  Hegel.4  The  doctrines  of  the  Kabbala  are 
chiefly  contained  in  two  books,  known  as  the  '  Sepher 
Yetzirah ' 5  or  '  Book  of  Creation,'  and  the  book  called 
(  Zohar  ' 6  or  '  Light.'  The  former  professes  to  give  an  ac- 
count of  the  creation  of  the  visible  world ;  the  latter,  of  the 
nature  of  God  and  of  heavenly  things — in  short,  of  the 
spiritual  world.7  Both  proceed  from  the  same  pantheistic 
point  of  view,  though  differing  in  the  details  of  their  con- 
tents.8 The  former  pretends  to  be  a  monologue  of  the  patri- 

1  Franck,  La  Kabbale  p.  263.  3  Franck,  La  Kabbah  p.  258.    Cf. 

2  By  Wachter,  who  afterwards  re-       Reuss   in   Herzog,    Art.     '  Kabbala,' 
tracted  the  charge.    Cf.  Franck,  p.  25.       p.  197. 

Leibnitz,  in   his  Animadversions    on  4  On  Hegelianism  in  the  Kabbala 

Wachter's  book  (published  in  1854  by  cf.  Franck,  pp.   162,    186,   193;  and 

M.  Foucher  de  Careil  under  the  title  Milman,  Hist,  of  the  Jews  III.  p.  433. 

Refutation    inedite   de    Spinoza  par  5  rTVV!  "^E. 

Leibnitz),  partly,  though  not  entirely  e  ^Til  ^.   aname  taken  from 
agrees  with  Wachter's  first  view.    See 

also    his     TModicee    §372     (Opera,  Dan.  xn.  3,  or  more  commonly  Vtt. 

Erdmann,    p.    612).     For   a  parallel  Franck,  p.  74. 

between  the  Kabbala  and  Spinoza,  see  ^  Reuss    in  Herzog,  Art.  <Kab- 

Ginsburg,  p.  95.  bala>'  P-  197> 

D  2 


36  SOURCES  OF  GNOSTICISM.  LECT.  m. 

arch  Abraham,  and  professes  to  declare  the  course  of  con- 
templation by  which  he  was  led  from  the  worship  of  the 
stars  to  embrace  the  faith  of  the  true  God.1  It  consists  of  a 
scheme  of  cosmogony  and  anthropogony,  running  parallel 
to  each  other,  man  being  regarded  as  the  microcosm,  or 
image  in  miniature  of  the  world,  exhibiting  in  his  consti- 
tution features  analogous  to  those  of  the  universe.  The 
method  reminds  us  of  Thales  and  Pythagoras  together ; 
the  letters  of  the  Hebrew  alphabet,  together  with  their 
numerical  powers,  being  employed  as  symbols  to  represent 
the  material  elements  of  the  world  regarded  as  emanations 
or  developments  of  the  one  divine  substance  or  spirit.2 
!V>r  the  purpose  of  our  present  inquiry  however,  this  work 
is  of  little  importance  compared  with  the  other  Kabbalistic 
book,  the  Zohar,  in  which,  if  at  all,  the  traces  of  a  connec- 
tion between  Kabbalism  and  Gnosticism  will  be  found. 

The  theory  of  the  Zohar  is  an  attempt  to  exhibit  all 
definite  existences,  spiritual  and  material,  as  a  series  of 
emanations,  more  or  less  remote,  from  a  primitive  abstrac- 
tion called  En  Soph  (P]iD  p$,  TO  aTrstpov,  ( that  which  has  no 
limits').  This  En  Soph  is  the  highest  of  all  possible  ab- 
stractions, an  incomprehensible  unity,  having  no  attri- 
butes and  no  definite  form  of  existence,  and  which  there- 
fore may  be  regarded  as,  in  a  'certain  sense,  non-existent.3 
At  the  same  time,  it  virtually  comprehends  within  itself 
all  existence ;  for  all  that  is  emanates  from  it,  and  is  con- 
tained in  it ;  for,  as  it  is  infinite,  nothing  can  exist  beyond 
it.  The  first  order  of  emanations,  by  which  the  primitive 
infinite  becomes  known,  consists  of  the  Sephiroth  (n'yvpp), 
a  word  which  has  been  sometimes  explained  by  Intelli- 
gences, but  which  may  more  probably  be  identified  in 


1  Ginsburg,  The  Kabbalah  p.  65.          and  Ginsburg,  p.  65  seq. 

2  For  a  complete  analysis  of  this  3  Franck,  p.  177 ;  Ginsburg,  p.  6 
book,  see  Franck,  2^e  Partie  ch.    i,       (cf.  p.  99). 


LECT.  in.       CLASSIFICATION  OF  GNOSTIC  SECTS.  37 

meaning  with  its  root  "i8p,  cto  number,'  and  with  the 
verbal  ipp,  (  a  numbering,' ]  which  is  by  some  supposed  to 
be  the  origin  of  our  own  word  cipher.2  These  ten 
Sephiroth  are  the  attributes  of  the  infinite  Being,  having 
no  reality  in  themselves,  but  existing  in  the  divine  Being 
as  their  substance,  while  he  (or  rather  it)  is  wholly  mani- 
fested in  each  one  of  them,  they  being  but  different 
aspects  of  one  and  the  same  reality.3  They  are  divided 
into  three  pairs,  represented  as  male  and  female,  with 
three  combining  principles,  and  a  final  emanation  uniting 
the  whole.4  This  system  of  the  ten  primitive  Sephiroth 
is  arranged  in  a  form  bearing  a  fanciful  resemblance  to 
the  human  body,  and  their  combination  is  from  this 
point  of  view  called  by  the  name  of  Adam  Kadmon,  the 
primordial  or  archetypal  man  ;  a  figurative  expression  of 
the  theory  which  regards  man  as  the  microcosm,  as  the 
miniature  representation  not  only  of  the  sensible  world,  but 
of  the  intelligible  systems  of  which  the  sensible  world  itself 
is  a  further  development.  The  division  of  these  principles 
into  male  and  female  was  considered  by  the  Kabbalists  as 
essential  to  the  production  and  conservation  of  all  that  is 
derived  from  them  ; 5  and  this  fancy  reappears,  as  we  shall 
hereafter  see,  in  some  of  the  Gnostic  systems.  From  the 
conjunction  of  the  Sephiroth6  emanated  directly  or  re- 
motely three  worlds  ;  two  called  the  worlds  of  creation  and 
of  formation,  being  spiritual,  though  of  different  degrees 
of  purity,  and  inhabited  by  spiritual  beings ;  the  last, 
called  the  world  of  action,  being  material,  subject  to 
change  and  corruption,  and  inhabited  by  the  evil  spirit 
and  the  hosts  subordinate  to  him.7  The  final  destiny 

1  Franck,  p.  147  ;  Keuss,  p.  199.  *  Ginsburg,  pp.  9, 20;  Franck,  p.  188. 

2  Menage,  as  cited  in  Richardson's  '  For  the  details  of  this  conjunc- 
Dictionary,  Art.  '  Cipher.'  tion,  see  Franck.    p.  200  seq.,  Gins- 

3  Franck,  p.  178  ;  Ginsburg,  p.  15.  burg,  p.  19  seq. 

4  Ginsburg,  pp.  9,  19.  7  Ginsburg,  pp.  23,  25. 


38  SOURCES  OF  GNOSTICISM.  LECT.  in. 

however  of  these  worlds,  as  of  all  finite  existence,  is  to 
return  to  the  infinite  source  from  which  they  emanated. 
Even  the  evil  spirit  himself  will  ultimately  become  once 
more  an  angel  of  light.  The  souls  of  men  however  will 
not  return  to  the  infinite  till  they  have  developed  all  the 
perfections  of  which  they  are  capable,  and  if  this  is  not 
effected  in  a  single  life,  the  soul  must  migrate  into 
another  body  until  the  development  is  complete.  Some- 
times two  souls  are  sent  into  the  same  body,  that  the 
stronger  may  help  the  weaker.1 

The  resemblance  of  this  strange  theory  to  some  of  the 
Gnostic  speculations  is  undeniable,  but  the  question  as 
regards  the  actual  historical  relation  between  the  two 
systems  is  involved  in  considerable  chronological  diffi- 
culties. If  indeed  we  were  to  listen  to  the  claims  of 
some  of  the  Kabbalists  themselves,  there  would  be  no 
difficulty,  so  far  as  its  antiquity  is  concerned,  in  supposing 
their  doctrine  to  have  influenced  every  school  of  philo- 
sophy from  the  creation  downwards  ;  for  the  Kabbala,  we 
are  told,  was  studied  by  angels  in  Paradise,  who  communi- 
cated it  to  Adam  after  the  fall,  as  a  means  of  restoration 
to  his  lost  happiness.2  Even  one  of  its  written  documents, 
the  Book  of  Creation,  was  supposed  by  admiring  com- 
mentators to  have  proceeded  from  the  pen  of  the  patriarch 
Abraham,  whose  meditations  it  records.3  The  most 
popular  tradition  however  confines  itself  within  much 
more  modest  limits,  attributing  the  composition  of  the 
Book  of  Creation  to  Eabbi  Akiba,  the  standard-bearer  of 
the  insurgent  Barcochab,  who  was  put  to  death  by  the 
Eomans  after  the  suppression  of  the  rebellion  (A.D.  135), 
while  the  book  Zohar  is  popularly  ascribed  to  Eabbi 
Simon  ben  Jochai,  a  few  years  later.  There  are  not 

1  Cf.   Ginsburg,  p.  64;    Franck,  2  Ginsburg,  p.  2. 

p.  217.  3  Franck,  p.  86. 


LECT.  in.       CLASSIFICATION  OF  GNOSTIC  SECTS.  39 

wanting  however  other  eminent  critics  who  maintain  an 
internal  evidence  that  the  Book  of  Creation  cannot  have 
been  written  earlier  than  the  ninth  century  of  our  era ; l 
while  the  Book  of  Light  is  brought  down  to  a  still  later 
date,  and  regarded  as  the  composition  of  a  Spanish  Jew 
in  the  latter  part  of  the  thirteenth  century.2  It  is  ad- 
mitted on  all  hands  that  there  are  portions  of  the  book 
which  must  be  regarded  as  comparatively  modern  inter- 
polations ;  and  even  those  critics  who  contend  for  the 
antiquity  of  the  doctrines  allow  that  the  book  in  its  pre- 
sent form  cannot  have  been  completed  earlier  than  the 
end  of  the  seventh,  or  beginning  of  the  eighth  century.3 
But  it  is  probable  that  some  at  least  of  the  doctrines 
existed  in  a  traditional  form  long  before  the  date  of  the 
written  authorities.  Notwithstanding  the  fundamental 
antagonism  between  the  monotheism  or  rather  pantheism 
of  the  Kabbala  and  the  dualism  of  the  Zoroastrian  reli- 
gious philosophy,  the  numerous  resemblances  of  detail 
which  exist  between  the  two  systems  seem  to  warrant  the 
conclusion  that  the  remote  origin  of  the  Kabbalistic 
traditions  must  be  referred  to  the  period  of  the  Captivity, 
and  to  the  influence  upon  the  Jewish  mind  of  the  philo- 
sophy of  their  Persian  masters.4  Many  of  these  resem- 
blances refer  to  points  which  have  no  direct  relation  to 
our  present  subject ;  but  the  parallel  between  the  En 
Soph,  the  abstract  Infinite  of  the  Kabbala,  and  the  Bound- 
less Time  which  stands  as  a  first  principle  in  one  form  at 
least  of  the  Persian  doctrine,  as  well  as  that  between  the 

1     Zunz     in      Ginsburg,     p.     77.  1305.     See  Ginsburg,  p.  90. 

Franck   on  the  other  hand    asserts  3  Franck,  p.  135;  Reuss  in  Her- 

that  the  language  of  the  book  shows  zog,  p.   196;   Milman,  Hist,    of  the 

that  it  must  have  been  written  not  Jews  III.  p.  431. 

later  than  the  middle  of  the  first  cen-  4  See  Franck,  pp.  353-390  ;  Mil- 

tury,     if  not    earlier ;    La  Kabbale  man,  Hist,  of  the  Jews  III.  p.  432 ; 

pp.  80,  91.  Matter,  I.  p.  136. 
2  Moses  de  Leon,  who  died   in 


40  SOURCES  OF  GNOSTICISM.  LECT.  in. 

six  Amshaspands  or  first  emanations  of  the  one  doctrine 
and  the  ten  Sephiroth  of  the  other,1  with  the  innumerable 
subordinate  developments  of  spiritual  beings  in  each,  con- 
stitute a  similarity  of  first  principles  which  can  hardly  be 
explained  except  on  the  supposition  of  a  common  origin. 
The  very  similarity  however  of  the  two  systems  makes  it 
difficult  to  decide  whether  the   Gnostic  theories  were  in 
any  degree  directly  influenced  by  the  early  traditions  of 
the  Kabbala,  or  whether  the  relation  between  them  may 
not  be  accounted  for  by  their  common  descent  from  a 
Persian  source.     Matter,  the  learned  historian  of  Gnosti- 
cism, propounds  this  question  without  venturing  to  give  a 
decisive  answer  to  it ; 2  and  it  may  be  doubted  whether  we 
are  in  possession  of  sufficient  materials  for  a  complete 
investigation  of  the  case.      Yet  though  the  direct  influ- 
ence of  the  Persian  doctrines  must  be  recognised  in  some 
portions  at  least  of  the  Gnostic  teaching,  there  are  others 
in  which  it  seems  more  probable  that  the  influence  has 
been  conveyed  through  a  Hebrew  channel.      Such,  for  in- 
stance, is  the  division  of  the   supreme  emanations  into 
pairs  as  male  and  female,  a  representation  which,  if  it 
appears  at  all  in  the  original  Persian  theory,  occupies  at 
least  a  very  subordinate  place,3  while  in  the  Kabbalistic 
teaching  it  is  made  essential  to  the  production  of  an  en- 
during offspring  in  the  inferior  emanations.      The  same 
distinction  appears  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  Gnostic 
teaching.     Simon  Magus,  who,  if  not,  as  he  is  usually  con- 
sidered, the  founder,  must  at  least  be  regarded  as  the 
precursor  of  the  Gnostic  heresies,  and  who  professed  to  be 

1  That  the  Persian  Amshaspands,  8  Matter,  vol.  I.  p.  117,  says,  'Les 

like  the  Jewish  Sephiroth,  are  but  Amshaspands  sont  des  deux  sexes.' 

allegorical  names  for  the  attributes  of  But  in  the  ZendAvesta  one  only  of  the 

the  Deity,  see  Quarterly  Review  for  six  is  female,  and  the  sexual  distinction 

October,  1867,  p.  456.  is  not  connected  with  any  theory  of 

3  Histoire  Critique  du  Gnosticisme  generation.  See  Bleeck's  Avesta,  Part 

I.  p.  141.  ii.  p.  29. 


LECT.  in.       CLASSIFICATION  OF  GNOSTIC  SECTS.  41 

'  the  great  Power  of  God,' 1  is  described  as  carrying  about 
with  him  a  certain  woman  named  Helena,  '  of  whom  he 
said  that  she  was  the  first  conception  of  his  mind,  the 
mother  of  all  things,  by  whom  in  the  beginning  he  con- 
ceived the  idea  of  making  the  angels  and  archangels;  for 
that  this  conception  (hanc  ennoian)  proceeded  forth  from 
him,  and  knowing  her  father's  wishes,  descended  to  the 
lower  world,  and  produced  the  angels  and  powers  by  whom 
the  world  was  made.' 2  The  relation  thus  profanely  as- 
serted to  exist  between  Simon  himself  claiming  to  be  the 
first  power  or  emanation  from  God,  and  his  female  com- 
panion announced  as  his  own  first  ennoia  or  conception, 
almost  exactly  corresponds  to  the  Kabbalistic  account 
of  the  highest  pair  of  Sephiroth,  proceeding  from  the 
crown  or  primordial  emanation.  At  first  there  proceeded 
forth  a  masculine  or  active  potency  designated  Wisdom 
(nopn).  This  Sephira  sent  forth  an  opposite,  i.e.  a  femi- 
nine or  passive  potency,  denominated  Intelligence  (n^3), 
and  it  is  from  the  union  of  these  two,  which  are  called 
the  Father  and  Mother,  that  the  remaining  seven  Sephiroth 
proceeded.3  Another  remarkable  parallel  may  be  found  in 
the  language  of  Irenseus  with  regard  to  a  later  school  of 
Gnostics — the  Marcosians,  or  disciples  of  Marcus,  a  fol- 
lower of  Yalentinus.  '  Some  of  these,'  he  says,  *  prepare 
a  bridal  chamber,  and  perform  certain  mystic  rites  of 
initiation  with  incantations  addressed  to  the  persons 
being  initiated.  This  ceremony  they  say  is  a  spiritual 
marriage  after  the  similitude  of  the  celestial  unions  (tca-ra 
TJ]V  ofjLOLOTrjra  TWV  dva)  (rv£vyLa)v).  Others  bring  their  dis- 
ciples to  the  water,  and  baptize  them  with  the  following 
form  of  words  :  Into  the  name  of  the  unknown  Father  of  the 

1  Acts  viii.  10.  s  Ginsburg,  The  Kabbalah    p.  8. 

2  Irenseus,    i.    23.     Cf.    Burton,       Cf.  Franck,  p.  343. 
Bampton  Lectures  p.  390. 


42  SOURCES  OF  GNOSTICISM.  LECT.  in. 

universe,  and  into  truth,  the  mother  of  all  things,  and  into 
him  who  came  down  upon  Jesus,  and  into  unity,  and  redemp- 
tion, and  communion  of  powers.  Others  repeat  Hebrew 
words  over  the  initiated,  the  more  to  amaze  them.'  l  The 
words  themselves  are  given  by  Irenseus  in  the  continua- 
tion of  the  passage,  but  the  text  is  so  corrupt  that  hardly 
any  sense  can  be  made  of  them.2  Yet  the  mention  of  the 
celestial  unions  and  of  the  father  and  mother  of  all  things, 
as  well  as  the  employment  of  Hebrew  words  in  their  in- 
cantations, seem  to  indicate  not  only  that  these  heretics 
had,  in  common  with  other  Gnostics,  adopted  a  classifica- 
tion of  divine  emanations  as  male  and  female,  but  also 
that  they  had  derived  their  classification  from  some  source 
in  which  the  language  employed  was  the  same  as  that  of 
the  Jewish  Kabbala.3 

Other  parallels  will  come  before  us  when  we  proceed 
to  treat  of  the  details  of  the  several  Gnostic  sects.  At 
the  present  stage  of  the  inquiry  it  will  be  more  appro- 
priate to  sum  up  the  results  in  a  general  and  provisional 
form,  which  we  may  do  by  borrowing  the  language  of  the 
learned  French  expositor  of  the  Kabbala.  Of  the  two 
most  distinguished  leaders  of  the  Gnostic  schools,  Basilides 
and  Yalentinus,  M.  Franck  remarks :  '  In  the  remains 
which'  have  descended  to  us  of  these  two  celebrated 
heresiarchs  we  can  without  difficulty  detect  the  presence 
of  the  most  characteristic  elements  of  the  Kabbala ;  such 
as  the  unity  of  substance,  the  formation  of  things  first  by 
concentration,  then  by  gradual  expansion  of  the  Divine 
light,  the  theory  of  pairs  and  of  the  four  worlds,  the  two 
Adams,  the  three  souls,  and  even  the  symbolical  language 
of  numbers,  and  of  the  letters  of  the  alphabet.  .  .  .  We 

1  Irenseus,  i.  21.  3.  Cf.  Eusebius,  Hampton  Lectures  p.  305. 
H.E.iv.  11,  and  Theodoret,  Hcer.  Fab.  2  Cf.  Massuet's  note  on  this  pas- 

i.  14,  who  notices  the  use  of  Hebrew  sage  of  Irenaeus. 
terms  by  the  Gnostics.     See  Burton,  3  Cf.  Matter,  vol.  I.  p.  141. 


LECT.  in.       CLASSIFICATION  OF  GNOSTIC  "SECTS.  43 

have  already  shown  that  the  metaphysical  ideas  which 
form  the  basis  of  the  Kabbala  are  not  borrowed  from  the 
Greek  philosophy ;  that,  far  from  having  been  the  native 
products  of  either  the  Pagan  or  the  Jewish  school  of 
Alexandria,  they  were  imported  into  those  schools  from 
Palestine ;  and  finally  we  have  shown  that  Palestine,  or 
at  least  Judea  properly  so  called,  is  not  even  itself  the 
cradle  of  the  doctrines  ;  for,  notwithstanding  the  impene- 
trable mystery  with  which  they  were  surrounded  by  the 
doctors  of  the  synagogues,  we  find  them,  though  in  a  form 
less  abstract  and  less  pure,  in  the  unbelieving  capital  of 
the  Samaritans,  and  among  the  heretics  of  Syria.  .  .  . 
The  foundation  of  these  ideas  remains  always  the  same  ; 
nothing  is  changed  in  the  relations  between  them  or  in 
the  formulas  in  which  they  are  clad  or  in  the  strange  tra- 
ditions which  accompany  them.'1 

I  shall  conclude  this  lecture  with  a  brief  account  of 
the  various  attempts  that  have  been  made  in  modern 
times  (the  early  authorities  in  this  respect  are  altogether 
deficient)  to  form  something  like  a  classification  or  syste- 
matic arrangement  of  the  several  Gnostic  schools,  so  as  to 
exhibit  the  scattered  notices  which  we  possess  of  their 
several  tenets  with  some  regard  to  their  philosophical 
affinity  and  connection  with  each  other.  It  must  be  pre- 
mised however,  that  all  such  attempts  coming  as  preli- 
minaries to  an  account  of  the  details  of  the  different 
systems  must  be  regarded  as  merely  general  and  pro- 
visional. The  grounds  which  may  be  alleged  in  justifica- 
tion or  in  condemnation  of  one  or  another  cannot  be  fully 
understood  till  the  details  themselves  are  before  us  ;  and 
though  a  preliminary  account  of  these  classifications  is  of 
interest  in  itself,  and  may  help  to  throw  light  on  what  is 

1  La  Kabbale  p.  350  seg.  For  the  Gnosticism,  see  Burton,  Bampton 
Adam  Kadmon  of  the  Kabbala  in  Lectures  p.  305. 


44  SOURCES  OF  GNOSTICISM.  LECT.  in. 

to  follow,  we  are  not  yet  in  a  position  to  judge  between 
the  several  principles,  and  to  decide  which  is  best  sup- 
ported by  the  actual  features  of  the  several  systems  with 
which  they  attempt  to  deal.  Nevertheless,  as  such  classi- 
fications have  occupied  the  attention  of  some  of  the  most 
learned  and  acute  inquirers  of  modern  times,  and  as  most 
of  the  recent  writers  on  the  subject  have  attempted  some- 
thing of  the  kind  as  a  preliminary  to  a  more  detailed 
examination,  I  shall  venture  in  this  respect  to  follow  their 
example  by  giving  a  short  statement  of  what  has  hitherto 
been  done  in  this  province. 

The  first  writer  who  attempted  to  classify  the  Gnostic 
systems  on  any  other  ground  than  that  of  mere  chrono- 
logical sequence,  is  the  learned  Mosheim,  briefly  in  his 
6  Ecclesiastical  History,'  and  more  fully  in  his  *  Commen- 
taries on  the  Affairs  of  the  Christians  before  the  time  of 
Constantine  the  Great.'  '  It  will  be  easily  perceived,'  he 
says  in  the  latter  work,  f  by  any  one  who  shall  have  care- 
fully investigated  the  account  here  given  of  the  sects 
called  Gnostic,  that  there  is  this  principal  point  of  differ- 
ence between  them ;  namely,  that  while  some  retained 
whole  and  entire  the  ancient  Oriental  doctrine  of  two 
principles  of  things,  others  subtracted  something  from  it 
and  supplied  the  deficiency  by  foreign  inventions.  All 
agree  in  admitting  the  existence  from  all  eternity  not 
only  of  God,  but  of  a  matter  containing  the  cause  of  all 
depravity  and  evil.  .  .  .  But  those  who  sprang  up  in  Syria 
and  Asia  assigned  to  this  eternal  matter  a  special  Lord 
and  Master,  either  self-existent  or  sprung  from  matter 
itself;  thus  recognising,  in  addition  to  the  good  principle, 
an  evil  principle,  which  however  was  regarded  as  distinct 
from  the  Creator  of  the  world.  Those  on  the  other  hand 
who  sprang  up  in  Egypt,  such  as  Basilides,  Valentinus, 
and  others,  know  nothing  of  this  Prince  of  matter,  though 


LECT.  m.       CLASSIFICATION  OF  GNOSTIC  SECTS.  45 

they  added  to  the  Oriental  teaching  various  fancies  and 
inventions  of  Egyptian  origin.'1  A  similar  principle  of 
classification  is  adopted  by  another  learned  German 
Church  historian,  Gieseler,  who  however  finds  it  neces- 
sary to  add  to  the  Egyptian  and  Syrian  schools  a  third 
class  comprising  Marcion  and  his  followers.2  A  more 
philosophical  principle  of  arrangement  has  been  suggested 
by  Neander,  who  distinguishes  the  Gnostic  sects  into  two 
classes  according  to  the  relation  which  Christianity,  in 
their  conception  of  it,  is  supposed  to  bear  to  the  Jewish 
religion  and  to  the  God  of  the  Old  Testament.  All  the 
Gnostic  systems  had  one  feature  in  common ;  namely,  that 
they  regarded  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament  as  revela- 
tions of  two  different  Gods,  and  considered  the  mission  of 
Christ  to  proceed  from  a  higher  power  than  the  God  of 
the  Jewish  religion,  who  was  identified  with  the  Demiurge 
or  Maker  of  the  world.  But  under  this  common  assump- 
tion there  was  room  for  two  very  opposite  estimates  of  the 
older  revelation  and  of  the  God  whom  it  reveals.  Some 
of  the  Gnostic  sects  regarded  the  Demiurge  as  a  being 
altogether  alien  from  and  opposed  to  the  Supreme  God ; 
others  considered  him  merely  as  a  subordinate  power, 
inferior  but  not  hostile  to  the  Supreme  God,  and  acting, 
before  the  coming  of  a  more  perfect  revelation,  as  his 
unconscious  organ.3  By  the  former,  Judaism  was  re- 
garded as  a  religion  wholly  antagonistic  to  Christianity, 
and  which  the  higher  revelation  was  designed  to  destroy. 
The  latter  regarded  it  as  an  imperfect  preparation  for 
Christianity,  which  the  higher  revelation  was  designed  to 
complete.  From  this  point  of  view  the  Gnostic  schools 
may  be  divided  into  two  classes,  those  hostile  to  and  those 

1  De  Eebus   Christ,    ante    Const.       §§45-47. 

p.  410.  3  Neander,    Church    History,   II. 

2  Gieseler,    Eccl.    Hist,    vol.    I.      p.  39  (ed.  Bohn). 


46  SOURCES  OF  GNOSTICISM.  LECT.  in. 

comparatively  favourable  to  Judaism.     Under  the  former 
head  Neander  classes  the  Ophites,  as  well  as  the  schools 
of  Carpocrates,   Saturninus,   and   Marcion.      Under   the 
latter  he  reckons  Cerinthus,  Basilides,  Valentimis  and  his 
followers,  and  Bardesanes.     As  Mosheim's  classification 
was  supplemented  by  Gieseler,  so  that  of  ISTeander  has 
been  supplemented  by  Baur,  who  adds  Heathenism   to 
Judaism  as  two  religions  whose  relations  to  Christianity 
and  to  each  other  were  contemplated  from  different  points 
of  view,  and  thus  he  recognises  three  principal  forms  of 
Gnosticism.   The  first,  which  embraces  most  of  the  earlier 
sects,  including  the  schools  of  Basilides,  Valentimis,  the 
Ophites,  Saturninus,  and  Bardesanes,  regarded  the  pre- 
Christian  forms  of  religion,  the  Heathen  no  less  than  the 
Jewish,  as  preparations  for  Christianity  and  partial  dis- 
coveries of  the  truth.    The  second,  represented  by  Marcion, 
regarded  Christianity  in  the   light   of  a  system  wholly 
antagonistic  both  to  Judaism  and  Heathenism ;  while  the 
third,  to  which  belongs  the  system  of  the  Clementine 
Homilies,  and  perhaps  that  of  Cerinthus,  endeavoured  to 
unite  Judaism  and  Christianity  together  in  a  common 
antagonism    to   Heathenism.1      In   opposition    to    these 
attempts  at  philosophical  classification,  the  historian  of 
Gnosticism,  Matter,  considers  the  only  true  classification 
to  be  that  which  exhibits  the  succession  of  events  and 
points  out  the  principal  schools  according  as  they  arose 
in  different  countries.     From  this  point  of  view  he  recog- 
nises three  principal  centres  of  Gnosticism,  Syria,  Egypt, 
and  Asia  Minor,  and  classifies  the  different  sects  according 
as  they  were  formed  under  influences  emanating  from  one 
or  other  of  these  localities.     Under  this  classification  the 
Syrian  Gnosticism  is  represented  by  the  schools  of  Satur- 
ninus and  Bardesanes;  the  Egyptian  by  those  of  Basilides, 

1  See  Baur,  Die  Chr.  Gnosis  pp.  114-121. 


LECT.  in.       CLASSIFICATION  OF  GNOSTIC  SECTS.  47 

Valentinus,  and  the  Ophites,  with  some  minor  sects ;  and 
the  Gnosticism  of  Asia  Minor  by  Cerdon,  Mansion,  and 
their  successors.1 

In  the  midst  of  these  conflicting  opinions  concerning 
the  true  method  of  classification,  it  would  be  dangerous, 
at  any  rate  at  the  present  stage  of  our  inquiry,  to  attempt 
anything  like  a  philosophical  division  of  the  Gnostic  sects, 
a  task  which  is  rendered  more  difficult  by  the  variety  of 
the  influences  under  which  the  different  systems  were 
formed.  For  the  present  I  shall  endeavour  to  confine 
myself  as  nearly  as  possible  to  a  chronological  order  of 
events,  commencing  with  a  question  in  itself  the  most 
interesting,  and  to  be  answered  from  sources  with  which 
we  are  most  familiar,  that  of  the  traces  of  the  existence  of 
an  early  Gnosticism  to  be  discovered  in  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament.  This  inquiry  will  be  prosecuted  in  my 
next  lecture,  from  which  we  shall  afterwards  proceed  to 
those  later  developments  which  manifested  themselves 
subsequently  to  the  close  of  the  Canon  of  Scripture. 

1  Matter,  Hist.  Critique  du  Gnosticisme  I.  p.  323  seq. 


48  NOTICES  OF  GNOSTICISM  LECT.  iv. 


LECTUEE  IV. 

NOTICES   OF   GNOSTICISM   IN   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT. 

ON  the  mention  of  Gnostic  teachers  contemporaneous  with 
the  Apostles  and  alluded  to  in  the  New  Testament,  we  are 
naturally  disposed  in  the  first  instance  to  turn  to  the 
account  given  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  concerning 
Simon  Magus,  who  by  general  consent,  at  least  of  the  early 
authorities,  has  been  selected  as  the  father  and  first  re- 
presentative of  the  Gnostic  heresies^  Yet  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  expression  '  the  great  Power  of  God,'  which 
we  shall  have  occasion  to  consider  hereafter,  the  narrative 
of  the  Acts  throws  no  light  on  the  peculiar  character  of 
Simon's  teaching,  the  particulars  of  which  must  chiefly 
be  gathered  from  later  and  uninspired  authorities.  The 
earliest  distinct  indications  of  a  Gnostic  teaching  con- 
temporary with  the  Apostles  is  to  be  found  in  the  Epistles 
of  St.  Paul ;  chiefly,  as  might  naturally  be  expected,  in 
those  addressed  to  churches,  or  persons  presiding  over 
churches,  in  Asia,  one  of  the  early  centres  of  the  Gnostic 
teaching ;  to  which  must  be  added  those  addressed  to  the 
city  of  Corinth,  whose  commercial  activity  and  constant 
intercourse  with  other  centres  of  civilisation  rendered  it 
easily  accessible  to  the  influences  of  Asiatic  and  Alexandrian 
teaching.  In  fact  the  two  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians  are 
the  earliest  in  point  of  time  of  the  Apostolic  writings  in 
which  we  can  with  any  probability  recognise  an  allusion 
to  the  germs  of  a  teaching  which  afterwards  developed 


LECT.  iv.  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  49 

itself  in  the  Gnostic  schools.1  Here  we  have  the  earliest 
instance  of  the  use  of  the  word  yvwo-Ls  in  a  depreciatory 
sense,  77  yvwais  (frvaioi,  rj  be  ayaTrrj  olfcoSofj,sl,2  and  the  oc- 
casion on  which  these  words  are  used  is  such  as  to  warrant 
us  with  some  probability  in  interpreting  the  term  in  the 
same  technical  and  peculiar  sense  in  which  it  was  after- 
wards so  constantly  employed.  The  question  to  which  the 
words  relate  is  the  lawfulness  of  eating  meats  which  had 
been  offered  to  idols;  and  we  have  evidence  that  the 
lawfulness  of  partaking  of  these  sacrifices  was  distinctly 
maintained,  not  merely  by  the  later  Gnostics,  but  by  their 
precursor  Simon  Magus,  who,  under  the  pretence  of  superior 
knowledge,  indulged  in  this  respect  in  the  utmost  licence 
of  practice,  maintaining  that  to  those  who  knew  the  truth 
idolatry  was  a  thing  wholly  indifferent,  and  that  whether 
they  partook  of  the  heathen  sacrifices  or  not  was  a  thing 
of  no  consequence  in  the  sight  of  God.3  The  context  of  the 
passage  seems  'to  support  this  interpretation.  The  words 
of  the  next  verse,  si  &s  TIS  BOKSL  slbsvcu  [al.  syvw/cevai]  TI, 
ovBsTTO)  ov&sv  syvcoKEV  fcd6o)s  Ssl  yvwvai,  si  Se  TIS  ayaira  rbv  @£oi>, 
OVTOS  syvaxTTcu  i)7r  civTov,  read  like  a  direct  rebuke  of  that 
pretension  to  a  perfect  knowledge  of  God  and  divine  things 
which  forms  the  basis  of  the  whole  Gnostic  teaching ;  to 
which  it  may  be  added  that  Irenseus,  who  wrote  at  a  time 
when  the  Gnostic  systems  were  still  in  existence,  and  who 
entitled  his  work,  'The  Detection  and  Overthrow  of  Know- 
ledge falsely  so  called,'  expressly  cites  these  words  of  St.  Paul 
as  having  reference  to  the  Gnostic  doctrine.  '  On  this  ac- 
count,' he  says,  '  Paul  declared  that  knowledge  puffeth  up 

1  Assuming  the  probable  date  of  Origen,  c.  Gels.  vi.  11 }  nairoi  ye  virep 
the  two  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians  as  TOV  ir\eioi>as  virayayeo-dai  6  2iVaJI/  T^" 
A.D.  57.  ire  pi    TOV    QavaTov    Kivfivvov,   $v    Xpi(T- 

2  i  Cor>  yjii.  1.  Tiavol    alpetffQcu    ^i^dxOrjffav,   TTfpiei\e 

3  Cf.   Burton,    Hampton  Lectures  ruv     fjiaOrjTwv,     eVaSta^opelV     avrovs 
p.  100,  and  note  64.     His  authority  is  5i5o£as  -jrpbs  r^y  cl8u>\o\a.Tpiav. 


50  NOTICES  OF  GNOSTICISM  LECT.  iv. 

but  charity  edifieth ;  not  as  blaming  the  true  knowledge  of 
God,  for  then  he  must  first  have  accused  himself;  but 
because  he  knew  that  certain  men,  elated  by  the  pretence 
of  knowledge,  were  falling  away  from  the  love  of  God,  and 
while  deeming  themselves  to  be  perfect,  imagined  an  im- 
perfect creator  of  the  world.'1  We  may  infer  also  from 
other  passages  in  these  Epistles  that  among  the  opponents 
of  St.  Paul  in  the  Corinthian  Church  were  some  who  en- 
deavoured to  disparage  the  authority  of  the  Apostle  on  the 
ground  of  their  own  superior  knowledge  ;  and  when  we  find 
St.  Paul,  in  writing  to  this  church,  both  vindicating  his 
own  claim  to  knowledge  so  far  as  such  a  claim  could 
be  justly  made  by  man,  si  Se  /cal  I^L^T^S  TO>  Xo7«,  a\V  ov  rfj 
yvcocrsi,,'2  and  at  the  same  time  reminding  his  readers  that 
all  human  knowledge  is  but  in  part,  and  shall  vanish  away 
when  that  which  is  perfect  is  come, 3  these  words  acquire 
a  fuller  significance  if  we  recognise  in  the  Corinthian 
opponents  of  the  Apostle's  authority  the  precursors  of 
those  Ebionite  Gnostics  who  at  a  later  period  calumniated 
him  as  an  apostate  from  the  Law.4 

It  is  not  improbable  that  Gnostic  doctrines  are  at  least 
partially  and  indirectly  combated,  along  with  other  errors  of 
a  similar  character,  in  the  Apostle's  elaborate  and  trium- 
phant argument  for  the  resurrection  of  the  body  in  the 
fifteenth  chapter  of  the  First  Epistle.5  It  is  true  that  this 
article  of  the  Christian  faith  was  so  entirely  opposed  to  all 
the  schools  of  heathen  philosophy  (as  may  be  seen  from 
St.  Paul's  dispute  on  the  same  topic  with  the  Epicureans 
and  the  Stoics  at  Athens),  that  it  is  difficult  to  select 
any  one  school  of  heathen  thought  as  peculiarly  or  especially 
referred  to.  But  we  shall  see  a  little  later  how  the  pe- 

1  Irenaeus,  c.  Beer.  ii.  26.  *  Cf.^ea,ndeT,ChurckHist.I.p.479. 

2  2  Cor.  xi.  6.  5  Cf.  Burton,   Hampton   Lectures 
8  1  Cor.  xiii.  8,  10.                              p.  133. 


LECT.  iv.  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  51 

culiarly  Gnostic  form  of  this  error  appears  in  the  teaching 
of  St.  Paul's  subsequent  opponents,  Hymenseus  and  Phi- 
letus ;  and  we  may  reserve  what  has  to  be  said  on  this,  point 
till  we  come  to  speak  of  the  Epistle  in  which  their  heresy 
is  mentioned.1 

Passing  over  the  very  doubtful  allusions  to  Gnosticism 
which  some  have  supposed  to  exist  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans, 2  we  come  next  in  order  to  the  letters  addressed 
to  the  two  Asiatic  churches  of  Ephesus  and  Colossse.  Here 
we  are  in  one  of  the  chief  centres  of  Gnostic  influences,  both 
as  regards  philosophical  teaching  and  practical  addiction 
to  magic  arts  and  enchantments  ;  3  and  here,  accordingly, 
we  find  allusions  to  the  Gnostic  teaching  more  frequent 
and  more  distinct.  When  the  Apostle  prays  that  his 
Ephesian  converts  may  know  the  love  of  Christ  which 
passeth  knowledge  (rrjv  vTrepftdXXovcrav  TTJS  yvaxrscos  ayaTrrjv 
TOV  X/otoToO),4  we  are  reminded  of  that  contrast  between 
knowledge  and  love,  on  which  he  had  previously  insisted 
in  his  advice  to  the  Corinthians ;  and  when  he  adds  c  that 
ye  may  be  filled  with  all  the  fulness  of  God '  (iva  7r\rjpa}0rjrs 
sis  irav  TO  TrXtjpwfj.a  TOV  ©soy),5  we  are  at  least  conscious  of 
the  use  of  a  current  term  in  Gnostic  phraseology,  though 
the  verse  does  not,  taken  by  itself,  necessarily  imply  an 
allusion  to  Gnostic  theories.6  But  when  in  two  other 

1  Burton,  Bampton  Lectures  p.  84,  5  Ibid.     Cf.  Burton,  B.  L.  p.  83. 
seems  to  allow  a  possible  allusion  to             6  The  literal  meaning  of  ir\-f]pu/j.a 
Gnosticism  in  the  wisdom  censured  by  is  either  '  id  quod  impletum  est,'  or 
St.   Paul,  1  Cor.    i.  21,   ii.  6.     But  'id  quo  res  impletur';  and  the  pas- 
these  passages  may  as  probably  refer  sage  may  mean, '  up  to  the  measure  of 
to  Greek  philosophy.  that  which  is  filled  with  God,'  i.e.  '  so 

2  Burton,  p.  96,  supposes  a  refe-  as  yourselves  to  be  thoroughly  filled 
rence  of  this  kind  in  Rom.  xvi.  17-  with  God,'  or  'up  to  the  measure  of 
19,  which  he  allows  to  be  the  only  one.  that  with  which  God  is  filled,'  i.e.  '  so 

3  Acts    xix.    19.       Cf.    also  the  as  to  be  full  of  the  spiritual  perfec- 
'  Ephesian    letters,'   for    which     see  tions  with  which  God  is  filled.'     Elli- 
Matter,  I.  p.  204,  Burton,  Bampton  cott  and  Alford  seem  to  adopt  the 
Lectures  p.  83.  latter  sense,  but  the  former  best  suits 

4  Ephes.  iii.  19.  the  use  of  irK-t]p<aiJ.a.  in  t&e  other  pas-* 


52  NOTICES  OF  GNOSTICISM  IECT.  iv. 

passages  of  the  same  Epistle  we  find  the  Church  spoken 
of  as  the  body  of  Christ,  f  the  fulness  (TO  TT\TJ pco/jia)  of  Him 
that  filleth  all  in  all,' l  and  when  the  Christian  is  spoken  of 
as  coming  '  unto  a  perfect  man,  unto  the  measure  of  the 
stature  of  the  fulness  (TOT)  ir\rj pharos)  of  Christ,'2  though 
the  word  in  all  these  passages  is  used  in  a  different  sense 
from  that  in  which  it  held  so  conspicuous  a  place  in  the 
Gnostic  teaching,  we  are  tempted  at  first  sight  to  assent 
to  the  surmise  that  the  choice  of  this  term  may  have  been 
dictated  by  a  desire  to  turn  the  minds  of  his  readers  from 
the  false  to  the  true  use  of  it,  to  remind  them  that  the  true 
Pleroma,  the  place  of  those  united  with  God,  was  not  in 
that  mystic  region  of  spirits  where  the  Gnostics  placed  it, 
nor  to  be  attained  to,  as  they  asserted,  by  knowledge  only ; 
that  the  body  of  Christian  believers  was  the  true  Pleroma 
of  God — the  place  which  God  fills  with  His  presence  ;  and 
that  the  bond  of  union  which  raised  man  to  it  was  not 
knowledge,  but  love.3  And  this  surmise  is  perhaps  con- 
firmed by  the  words  which  follow  the  last  of  these  passages, 
and  which  seem  distinctly  to  point  to  a  false  teaching 
which  it  is  designed  to  correct :  '  That  we  henceforth  be 
no  more  children,  tossed  to  and  fro,  and  carried  about 
with  every  wind  of  doctrine,  by  the  sleight  of  man,  and 
cunning  craftiness,  whereby  they  lie  in  wait  to  deceive.'4 
The  interpretation  however  of  these  passages  must  be 
admitted  to  be  very  doubtful ;  and  it  is  at  least  an  open 
question  whether  the  use  of  the  term  ir\r)pw^a  was 

eage.     Philo,   De  Pram,   et  Pcen.  11  2  Ephes.  iv.  13. 

(p.  418  M),  uses  it  of  the  human  soul,  8  Cf.   Burton,   Bampton  Lectures 

ycvo/jLffr)  irX-f]pw(j.a  apercai/  y  tyvxj] ',  and  pp.  125,  6. 

this  seems  to  correspond  to  its  appli-  4  Ephes.  iv.  14.     The  last  words, 

cation  to  God  as  filled  with  all  excel-  eV  Travovpyia  irpbs  TT]V    /meOoSeiav   TT}? 

lencies.       Cf.  Olshausen    on   Ephes.  irXdvrjs,  may  be  more  literally  rendered, 

'•  23.  <in  craftiness  tending  to  the  delibe- 

1  Ephes.  i.  23.  rate  system  of  error.'     See  Ellicott. 


LECT.  iv.  IN   THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  53 

suggested  to  St.  Paul  by  Gnostic  writers,  or  borrowed  by 
them  from  the  New  Testament. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  which  was  written  at. 
the  same  time  with  that  to  the  Ephesians,  contains  how- 
ever more  distinct  indications  of  the  existence  of  Gnostic 
errors  among  those  to  whom  it  was  addressed.1  The  false 
teaching  which  the  Apostle  denounces  in  this  Epistle  seems 
to  have  manifested  itself  in  the  form  of  a  combination  of 
Judaism  with  Gnosticism,  such  as  was  afterwards  more 
fully  developed  in  the  teaching  of  Cerinthus.;  though  the 
tradition  which  brings  Cerinthus  himself  into  personal  col- 
lision with  St.  Paul  will  hardly  bear  the  test  of  chronology.9- 

The  characteristics  of  this  teaching  may  be  easily 
gathered  from  evidence  furnished  by  the  language  of  the 
Epistle.  Eirst ;  it  pretended,  under  the  plausible  name  of 
philosophy,  to  be  in  possession  of  a  higher  knowledge  of 
spiritual  things  than  could  be  obtained  through  the 
simple  preaching  of  the  Gospel.  Secondly  ;  it  adopted  the 
common  tenet  of  all  the  Gnostic  sects,  that  of  a  distinc- 
tion between  the  supreme  God  and  the  Deniiurgus  or 
creator  of  the  world.  Thirdly ;  by  virtue  of  its  pretended 
insight  into  the  spiritual  world,  it  taught  a  theory  of  its 
own  concerning  the  various  orders  of  angels  and  the 
worship  to  be  paid  to  them.  And  fourthly  ;  in  connection 
with  these  theories,  it  enjoined  and  adopted  the  practice 
of  a  rigid  asceticism,  extending  and  exaggerating  the  cere- 
monial prohibitions  of  the  Jewish  law,  and  probably  con- 
necting them  with  a  philosophical  theory  concerning  the 
evil  nature  of  matter.3 

'Probably    from  Eome,    during  imprisonment  at  Caesarea,  from  A.D.  58 

St.  Paul's  first  imprisonment,  A.D.  61  to  60. 

or  62.     Both  Epistles  were  sent  by  the  2  Cf.  JSeander,  Planting  of  Christi- 

hands  of    Tychicus  ;   Ephes.  vi.  21,  anity  p.  325  (ed.  Bohn).. 
Coloss.  iv.  7.     Some  consider  them  to  3  See  Neander,  Planting  of  Chri^ti- 

have  been  written  during  the  earlier  anity  p.  331. 


54  NOTICES  OF  GNOSTICISM  LECT.  iv. 

All  these  characteristics  may  be  distinctly  traced  in 
the  warning  language  of  St.  Paul.  As  regards  the  first, 
we  find  him  bidding  his  readers  to  beware  lest  any  man 
spoil  them  '  through  philosophy  and  vain  deceit,  after  the 
tradition  of  men,  after  the  rudiments  of  the  world,  and 
not  after  Christ ; '  l  and  he  speaks  of  the  false  teacher  as 
'intruding  into  things  which  he  hath  not  seen,  vainly 
puffed  up  by  his  fleshly  mind.' 2  As  regards  the  second, 
we  find  the  Apostle  exhausting  every  power  of  language 
in  declaring  that  by  Christ,  'the  image  of  the  invisible 
God,'  e  all  things  were  created,  that  are  in  heaven  and 
that  are  in  earth,  visible  and  invisible,  whether  they  be 
thrones  or  dominions  or  principalities .  or  powers ;  all 
things  were  created  by  Him  and  for  Him ;  and  He  is  be- 
fore all  things,  and  by  Him  all  things  consist.'3  As 
regards  the  third,  the  obscure  text,  e  Let  no  man  beguile 
you  of  your  reward  in  a  voluntary  humility  and  wor- 
shipping of  angels,' 4  receives  a  satisfactory  explanation  if 
we  suppose  that  the  well-knpwn  doctrine  of  the  early 
Gnostics,  that  the  world  was  created  by  angels,  had 
among  the  Judaizing  Gnostics  taken,  as  it  naturally 
might,  the  form  of  a  worship  addressed  to  them  as 
mediators  between  the  supreme  God  and  the  world.5  And 

1  Coloss.  ii.  8.      The  expression  TGI  cott  here),  or  '  for  his  own  arbitrary 

(TTOixeTa  rov  K6ff/j.ov   seems  to  mean  pleasure.'       See    Neander,    Planting 

elementary  teaching,  sensuous  rather  p.  327. 

than  really  spiritual,  and  so  belonging  5  Cf.  Baur,  Die  Chr.  Chiosis  p.  49. 

to  this  world.    Cf.  Lightfoot  and  Elli-  Simon  Magus  held  that  the  world  was 

cott  on  Gal.  iv.  3.  created  by  angels   (Irenseus,   i.  23). 

a  Coloss.  ii.  18.     On  the  retaining  But  Simon's  anti- Judaizing  tendency 

of  the    negative,   a  fj.^j    f6paK€i>,    see  would  lead  him  to  regard  these  angels 

EUicott  on  this  place,  and  Neander,  as  governing  ill,  and  to  state  his  own 

Planting  p.  327.  mission  as  opposed  to  theirs  (Ireneeus, 

3  Coloss.   i.  16,  17.     Cf.   Burton,  L  c.},  though  he  seems  to  have  used 
B.  L.  p.  113.  their   names    for    magical   purposes 

4  Coloss.  ii.  18.     The  word  0eAo?i/  (Tertullian,      De     Prcescr.     c.      33). 
may  be  more  literally  rendered  either  Judaizing    Gnostics     on    the    other 
'  purposing  to  beguile  you  '  (see  Elli-  hand,  identifying  the  Demiurge  with 


LECT.  iv,  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  55 

finally,  as  regards  the  fourth  characteristic,  the  spurious 
asceticism  which  manifests  itself  in  subjection  to  ordinances 
of  man's  commanding,  '  Touch  not,  taste  not,  handle 
not,'  and  the  show  of  wisdom  which  consists  in  will- 
worship,  and  humility,  and  neglecting  of  the  body,  are 
contrasted  with  the  true  mortification  of  those  who  are 
dead  to  the  world,  and  whose  life  is  hid  with  Christ 
in  God.  'Mortify  therefore  your  members  which  are 
upon  the  earth  :  fornication,  uncleanness,  inordinate 
affection,  evil  concupiscence,  and  covetousness,  which  is 
idolatry.' ! 

The  Gnostic  term  pleroma  appears  in  this  Epistle  as 
well  as  in  that  to  the  Ephesians,  and  with  very  nearly  the 
same  significance.  That  which  was  before  said  of  the 
Church,  the  body  of  Christ,  'the  fulness  of  Him  that 
filleth  all  in  all,'  is  now  said  of  Christ,  the  head  of  that 
body  :  ( It  pleased  the  Father  that  in  Him  should  all  ful- 
ness dwell.' 2  But  we  may  perhaps  further  remark  that 
in  the  second  of  the  two  passages  in  this  Epistle  in  which 
the  word  is  used,  ore  sv  avTw  tcaroucei  TTOLV  TO  TrX^pcD/^a  TTJS 
OSOTTJTOS  o-a/jLCLTiicws,3  the  stress  that  is  laid  on  this  last 
word  is  designed  to  refute  another  error  of  the  Gnostic 
teaching,  arising  from  their  hypothesis  of  the  evil  nature 
of  matter — the  denial  of  the  real  Incarnation  of  Christ. 
The  Docetic  heresy  was  one  of  the  earliest  forms  of 
Gnosticism ; 4  and  we  shall  have  occasion  to  show  that,  not 
very  long  after  the  time  at  which  this  Epistle  was 
written,  it  came  distinctly  under  the  notice  of  St.  Paul, 
and  was  the  object  of  one  of  his  most  severe  rebukes. 

If  teaching  of  this  character  had  begun  to  corrupt  the 
Ephesian  Church  at  the  time  of  St.  Paul's  first  imprison- 

the  God  of  the  0.  T.,  would  be  likely  2  Coloss.  i.  18,  19. 

to  worship  him  and  his  assistant  or  3  Coloss.  ii.  9. 

subordinate  angels.  4  See  Burton,  B,  L.  p.  158. 
1  Coloss.  ii.  20-23,  Hi.  3-5. 


56  NOTICES  OF  GNOSTICISM  LECT.  iv. 

ment  at  Borne,  when  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  was 
written,  we  find  further  evidence  that  the  evil  had  spread 
more  widely,  and  taken  root  more  deeply,  at  a  somewhat 
later  date,  when  the  two  Epistles  were  written  to  Timothy, 
the  bishop  of  that  Church.  The  first  of  these  Epistles, 
together  with  that  to  Titus,  was  probably  written  some 
time  after  St.  Paul's  release  from  his  first  imprisonment, 
about  A.D.  65 ;  and  the  second,  the  latest  of  the  Apostle's 
writings,  during  his  second  imprisonment,  shortly  before 
his  martyrdom,  probably  A.D.  67.  In  the  First  Epistle  the 
heretical  teaching  is  distinctly  mentioned  under  its  own 
name — ^rsv^wvv^os  ryvwais, f  knowledge  falsely  so  called  ' ; 1 
though  it  is  doubtful  whether  the  avndecrsis  ascribed  to 
this  false  knowledge  refer  to  the  opposite  principles  re- 
cognised in  most  of  the  Gnostic  systems,  or  simply  to  the 
opposition  which  these  false  teachers  offered  to  the  Gos- 
pel.2 The  latter  seems  on  the  whole  to  be  the  more 
simple  and  probable  interpretation.  As  at  the  end  of  the 
Epistle  St.  Paul  thus  warns  Timothy  against  the  falsely- 
named  knowledge,  so  at  the  beginning  he  bids  him  not  to 
'  give  heed  to  fables  and  endless  genealogies,  which  minister 
questions,  rather  than  godly  edifying  which  is  in  faith ' ; 3 
a  passage  which  the  majority  of  commentators,  ancient 
and  modern,  consider  with  reason  as  applying  to  the  suc- 
cessive emanations  of  spiritual  beings  which  were  asserted 
in  the  Gnostic  systems  from  the  very  beginning  of  their 
teaching.  Nor  does  it  in  any  way  invalidate  this  inter- 
pretation, when  we  find  these  same  genealogies  mentioned 
in  the  contemporary  Epistle  to  Titus  together  with 

1  1  Tim.  vi.  20.  For  the  former,  see  Matter,  Hist,  du 

2  Cf.  Burton,  B.  L.  p.  80.     For       G-nost.  vol.  I.  p.  208. 

authorities  for  referring  this  text  to  3  1    Tim.   i.   4,   where  ohcovopiav 

the  Gnostics,  see  ibid,  note  37.     Elli-  should  rather  be  read  and  rendered 

cott  on  this  passage  gives  reasons  for  '  a  dispensation.'     The  easier  reading 

preferring   the  latter  interpretation.  otKoSo/Joi/  is  deficient  in  authority. 


LECT.  iv.  IN   THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  57 


6  strivings  about  the  law  '  (/*«%«&  vofiucat),1  while  in  the 
earlier  part  of  the  same  Epistle  there  is  a  similar  warn- 
ing against  e  Jewish  fables  '  (fjurj  Trpoas^ovrss  'lovbal/cois 
fj,v0oi,s),2  for  we  have  already  seen  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Colossians  how  the  Gnostic  speculations  at  this  time  were 
accompanied  by  a  spurious  asceticism  based  on  the  Jewish 
law,  such  as  to  mark  its  teachers  as  men  of  Jewish  origin 
and  Judaizing  tendencies,  even  if  we  do  not  admit  an 
allusion  (which  is  possible,  though  disputable  on  chrono- 
logical grounds)  to  the  genealogical  emanations  of  the 
Jewish  Kabbala.3 

In  the  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy,  written  probably 
about  two  years  later  than  the  First,  we  find  an  allusion  to 
a  definite  feature  of  heretical  teaching  which  there  is 
little  difficulty  in  connecting  with  Gnostic  principles. 
The  Apostle  here  writes,  '  Shun  profane  and  vain  bab- 
blings, for  they  will  increase  unto  more  ungodliness,  and 
their  word  will  eat  as  doth  a  canker  :  of  whom  is  Hymenseus 
and  Philetus,  who  concerning  the  truth  have  erred,  saying 
that  the  resurrection  is  passed  already,  and  overthrow  the 
faith  of  some.'  4  The  Hymenseus  here  mentioned  is  pro- 
bably the  same  person  who  in  the  former  Epistle  to 
Timothy  is  coupled  with  Alexander  as  having  put  away 
faith  and  a  good  conscience,  and  made  shipwreck  con- 
cerning the  faith  ;  5  and  a  reference  to  the  earliest  form 
of  Gnostic  error  will  enable  us  to  understand  the  exact 
nature  of  the  false  doctrine  here  reprehended.  One  of 
the  fundamental  tenets  of  Gnosticism  from  the  beginning, 
and  one  which  we  have  already  seen  manifested  in  the 
corruptions  of  the  Church  at  Colossae,  was  the  doctrine  of 
the  evil  nature  of  matter  and  of  the  material  body.  This 

1  Titus  iii.  9.  Alford  on  1  Tim.  i.  4. 

2  Ibid.  i.  14.  4  2  Tim.  ii.  16-18. 

8  See  Burton,  B.  L.  p.  114.     The  5  1  Tim.  i.  19,  20.     Cf.  Burton, 

same  view  is  held  by  Vitringa  ;  see      B.  L.  p.  135. 


58  NOTICES  OF  GNOSTICISM  LECT.  iv. 

led,  as  we  have  already  observed,  to  a  denial  of  the  Incar- 
nation of  Christ ;  for  a  Divine  being  could  not  be  supposed 
to  assume  a  body  made  of  evil  matter.    This  heresy  mani- 
fested itself  in  two  forms  :  first,  that  of  the  Docetse,  who 
held  the  body  of  our  Lord  to  be  an  immaterial  phantom ; 
and   secondly,   that   of  the   Ebionites   and   others,   who 
asserted  that  the  spiritual  being  Christ  was  a  distinct 
person  from  the  man  Jesus;  that  the  former  descended 
upon  the  latter  at  his  baptism  and  left  him  before  his 
crucifixion,  never  being  united  to  him  in  one  person.     It 
is  obvious  at  once  how  radically  incompatible  this  theory 
must  be  with  the  central  doctrine  of  the  apostolic  preach- 
ing— the  bodily  resurrection  of  Christ  as  the  first  fruits  of 
them  that  slept,  and  through  Christ  the  future  resurrec- 
tion to  life  of  those  that  are  Christ's  at  His  coming. 
How  to  such  a  philosophy  was  it  conceivable  that  *  Christ 
did  truly  rise  again  from  death,  and  took  again  his  body, 
with  flesh,  bones,  and  all  things  appertaining  to  the  perfec- 
tion of  man's  nature  *  ?     Or  how  could  it  be  believed  that 
hereafter  '  at  His  coming  all  men  shall  rise  again  with 
their  bodies '  ?     Still  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  was 
too   fundamental  a  point   of  the  Christian   faith  to   be 
openly  and  altogether  denied  by  any  having  the  slightest 
claim  to  be  in  any  sense  believers  in  Christ.    If  not  openly 
repudiated,  it  must  be  evaded ;  it  must  be  neutralised — to 
adopt  a  device   not  limited   to   the   first   century  or  to 
Gnostic   heretics ;   it   must  be   c  spiritually   understood.' 
There  is  no  doubt  a  resurrection,  but  it  is  a  resurrection 
of  the  spirit,  not  of  the  flesh.      The  Gnostic,  the  man  of 
religious  knowledge  emancipated  from  the  dead  letter  and 
outward  symbols  of  truth  and  admitted  by  wisdom  to  the 
higher  mysteries  beyond  them,  may  be  truly  said  to  have 
passed  from  death  to  life,  to  have  risen  from  the  natural 
and  put  on  the  spiritual  state.     In  this  way  it  was  main- 


LECT.  iv.  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  59 

tained  that  '  the  resurrection  is  past  already,'  being  a 
spiritual  process  taking  place  during  the  present  life.1 
That  such  a  doctrine  was  actually  held,  not  only  by  some 
of  the  later  Gnostics,  but  also  by  the  earliest  disciples  of 
the  heresy,  may  be  inferred  from  the  language  of  Irenseus, 
who  attributes  to  the  Simonians,  the  followers  of  Simon 
Magus,  as  well  as  to  the  disciples  of  the  later  Carpocrates, 
the  theory  '  esse  autem  resurrectionem  a  rnortuis  agni- 
tionem  ejus,  quse  ab  eis  dicitur,  veritatis.' 2  It  is  probable 
that  this  error  may  be  one  of  those  to  which  St.  Peter 
alludes,  when  he  speaks  of  the  unlearned  and  unstable 
wresting  passages  in  St.  Paul's  Epistles  to  their  own  de- 
struction ; 3  for  the  heresy  in  question,  though  utterly 
contradicting  the  whole  tenor  of  St.  Paul's  teaching, 
might  have  found  an  imaginary  support  in  his  language 
to  the  Eomans  and  to  the  Colossians.  '  Therefore  are  we 
buried  with  him  by  baptism  unto  death,  that  like  as 
Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the 
Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life ' ; 
and  again,  '  Buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  also  ye 
are  risen  with  him  through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of 
God,  who  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead.' 4 

I  have  reserved  to  the  last  place  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  on  account  of  the  doubts  that  have  been  raised 
as  to  its  authorship.  It  is  probable  however,  that  under 
any  circumstances  the  position  now  assigned  to  it,  if  not 
strictly  in  the  order  of  chronology,  will  not  be  more  than 
two  or  three  years  out  of  it.  If,  as  I  think  on  the  whole 
the  most  probable,  we  consider  this  Epistle  as  written  or  at 
least  superintended  by  St.  Paul,  the  most  natural  date  to 
assign  to  it  will  be  the  year  64  or  65,  after  the  termina- 

1  On  this  doctrine  as  held  by  the  2  Irenseus,   ii.    31,    2.     Of.    Ter- 

Gnostics,  see  Burton,  B.  L.  p.   134,  tullian,  De  Resurr.  Carnis  c.  19. 
and  note  59.     Cf.  Alford  and  Ellicott  3  2  Peter  iii.  16. 

on  2  Tim.  ii.  18.  *  Kom.  vi.  4;  Coloss.  ii.  12. 


60  NOTICES  OF  GNOSTICISM  LECT.  iv. 

tion  of  the  Apostle's  first  imprisonment  at  Koine.  It  will 
thus  only  just  precede  the  First  Epistle  to  Timothy  and 
that  to  Titus.  If  on  the  other  hand  we  deny  the  Pauline 
authorship,  we  may  possibly  place  it  a  short  time  after 
the  Apostle's  death,  but  at  all  events  before  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem — probably  therefore  not  later  than  68 
or  69. l  The  date  of  this  Epistle  will  therefore  very  nearly 
coincide  with  the  period  which  we  have  just  been  consi- 
dering, and  we  may  naturally  expect  to  find  allusions  to 
the  same  phase  of  false  doctrine.  And  in  fact  we  may 
trace  in  this  Epistle  probable  allusions  to  the  two  great 
errors  which  characterized  Gnosticism  from  the  be- 
ginning— the  attempt  to  distinguish  the  supreme  God, 
the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  from  the  God  of  the 
Old  Testament,  and  the  denial  of  the  real  Incarnation  of 
the  Redeemer.  In  the  opening  words  of  the  Epistle  the 
writer  confidently  affirms  that  it  is  one  and  the  same  God 
who  spake  to  the  Jews  by  the  prophets  and  who  speaks 
now  by  Christ ;  '  God,  who  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers 
manners  spake  in  time  past  unto  the  fathers  by  the  pro- 
phets, hath  in  these  last  days  spoken  unto  us  by  His 
Son.' 2  And  in  a  subsequent  passage  the  Incarnation  of 
Christ  is  asserted  in  terms  which  seem  to  have  direct 
reference  to  some  of  the  Docetic  theories :  '  Forasmuch 
then  as  the  children  are  partakers  of  flesh  and  blood,  he 
also  himself  likewise  took  part  of  the  same  ;  that  through 
death  he  might  destroy  him  that  hath  the  power  of  death, 
that  is,  the  devil.  .  .  .  For  verily  he  took  not  on  him  the 
nature  of  angels,  but  he  took  on  him  the  seed  of  Abra- 
ham. Wherefore  in  all  things  it  behoved  him  to  be  made 

1  Timothy  seems    to    have    been  rence  will  be  immediately  after  the 

just  set  at  liberty  when  this  Epistle  death  of  Nero  in  A.D.  68. 
was  written  (Heb.  xiii.  23).     Jf  this  2  Heb.  i,   1,  2.    Cf,  Burton,  B.  L. 

event  occurred  after  St.  Paul's  death,  p.  128. 
the  most  probable  time  of  its  occur- 


!N  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT,        ^gjftj^ 

like  unto  his  brethren.' l  The  occurrence  of  these  allu- 
sions to  Gnosticism  seems  to  strengthen  the  supposition 
that  this  Epistle  was  addressed,  if  not  to  the  Jewish 
Christians  at  Jerusalem  (which  on  the  whole  the  language 
in  which  it  is  written  renders  improbable  2),  at  least  to 
that  other  seat  of  Judaism  and  Jewish  worship,  Alex- 
andria, one  of  the  chief  centres  from  which  Gnostic  doc- 
trines emanated.  If  this  hypothesis  be  tenable,  it  is,  to 
say  the  least,  a  noteworthy  coincidence,  that  of  all  the 
early  Christian  Churches  that  of  Alexandria  is  the  one 
which  has  most  positively  and  consistently  affirmed  the 
Pauline  authorship  of  the  Epistle.3 

A  separate  consideration  must  be  given  to  a  few 
passages  from  these  Epistles,  which  are  sometimes  cited 
as  containing  allusions  to  the  Gnosticism  of  this  period, 
but  which  labour  under  some  peculiar  difficulties,  both 
chronological  and  exegetical.  I  mean  those  texts  in 
which  the  word  JEon  occurs  either  in  the  singular  or  the 
plural  number.  In  the  midst  of  numerous  passages  of  the 
New  Testament  in  which  this  word  is  undoubtedly  used 
without  any  reference  to  its  Gnostic  signification,  two 
have  been  selected  in  which  the  term  has  by  some  critics 
been  interpreted  in  a  personal  sense  as  meaning  one  of 
the  spiritual  beings  of  the  Gnostic  mythology.4 

The  first  of  these  is  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  (ii. 
2),  [rats  afjuapTiais]  EV  als  TTOTS  TrspiSTraTrjaaTS  KCLTCL  TOV  alwva 
TOV  Koa/juov  TOVTOV,  KdTCi  TOV  dp^ovTa  T7J9  £%ov(TLas  TOV  aepos, 
where  our  translation  renders  c  according  to  the  course  of 
this  world,'  which  is  probably  the  true  meaning.  The 

1  Heb.  ii.  14,  16,  17.    Cf.  Burton,       Script.  Eccles.  c.  5. 

JB.  L.  p.  167.  3  See  the  Alexandrian  evidence  on 

2  Unless  we  accept  the  tradition  this  point  in   Alford's   Prolegomena ; 
of  a  Hebrew  original  of  this  Epistle  who  however  himself  holds  a  different 
asserted  by  Clement   of  Alexandria,  view. 

Eusebius,   Jerome,   and    others.     Cf.  4  Cf.  Burton,  B.  L.  pp.  Ill,  115. 

Euseb.   iii.  30,  vi.  14;   Hieron.  Cat. 


62  NOTICES  OF  GNOSTICISM.  LECT.  iv. 

Gnostic  sense  is  open  to  the  objection  that  it  makes  the 
Apostle  himself  in  some  degree  sanction  the  Gnostic 
mythology,  as  well  as  that  it  is  opposed  to  St.  Paul's  con- 
stant use  of  the  term  alcov  in  other  places.1  The  second 
passage  is  that  in  the  beginning  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  &'  ov  /cal  TOVS  alwvas  STTOLTJO-SV,  where  again  our 
English  translation, c  he  made  the  worlds,'  is  more  accurate 
than  that  which  supposes  a  Gnostic  sense.  The  latter 
interpretation  is  refuted  by  the  parallel  passage  in  the 
beginning  of  the  eleventh  chapter,  irterei  voov^zv  Karrjp- 
TiaQai  TOVS  alwvas  prj/Aari,  ©sou,  slf  TO  fJb'rj  SK  ^xnvo^iv^v  ra 
@\s7r6fjLsva  [al.  TO  P\£Tr6fjusvov]  ysyovsvcu,  where  the  explana- 
tion of  TOVS  alwvas  by  TO,  /3\S7r6(jLSva  (or  TO  fiXsTropevov)  pre- 
cludes the  possibility  of  an  allusion  to  the  Gnostic  JEons. 
But  a  more  general  objection  may  be  found  in  the  chro- 
nology of  the  Gnostic  language.  Though  the  term  JEon 
is  known  to  have  been  used  by  Valentinus  and  others  of 
the  second  century  to  express  their  emanations  of  spiritual 
beings,  there  is  not  sufficient  evidence  to  sjiow  that  the 
word  was  so  used  as  early  as  the  time  of  St.  Paul,  or 
rather  there  is  some  evidence  to  the  contrary.  In  a 
curious  fragment  from  a  work  of  Simon  Magus  which  has 
been  preserved  by  Hippolytus,  the  term  occurs  apparently 
in  a  different  sense;2  and  the  language  of  Hippolytus 
himself  in  a  subsequent  passage  seems  to  imply  that  the 
term  Mons  was  first  introduced  by  Valentinus  as  an  inno- 
vation on  the  language  of  Simon.3 

1  See  especially  Gal.  i.  4  e/c  roO       of  all  things.    Cf.  Harvey's  Iren&us, 
fveffTuros  aloavos  Trovypov,  '  from  this       Introd.  p.  Ixvii. 

present  evil    world '    or    '  course   of  3  Hippol.   R.   H,  vi.   20,   p.   258 

things.'  (Duncker),  Ovros  Srj    /col  6  Kara  rbv 

2  Simonis    'ATrJ^ao-ts    MeyoA.^    in  2i'jUft"/a  fj.vdos,  atf   ov  OvaXej/rwos  ras 
Hippol.  Ref.   H(er.  vi.  18,  p.  250  (ed.  a</>opntets  \aftuv  &\\ois  bi>6p.a.ffi  /caAc?. 
Duncker),    Suo    etal    •jropa^ucxSey   ru>v  b  yap  vovs  Kal  f)  oA,7j0e/a,  /col  \6yos  /cal 
'6\<av  aiuvwv,  where    the  term  aicaves  fa$],    Kal    &vQpa>iros   /col    e/c/cA7j<rfo,     ol 
seems    to    mean    the    first    principle  OuoAej/rtVov     ai&ves,     6fj.o\o<yov/j.fvcas 


LECT.  iv.  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  63 

Thus  far  we  have  examined  the  traces  of  early  Gnosti- 
cism furnished  by  the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament 
down  to  the  death  of  St.  Paul.  We  must  postpone  to 
another  lecture  the  examination  of  the  evidence  furnished 
by  later  writings,  particularly  those  of  St.  John. 


al  2i/icoTOS  e£  fiifai,  vouy,   eirivota,   <(xa^,  wopa,    \oyi<r/j(.bs   nal 
Cf.  Matter,  I.  p.  303. 


64  NOTICES  OF  GNOSTICISM.  LECT.  v. 


LECTUEE    V. 

NOTICES   OF   GNOSTICISM   IN   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT. 

OUR  last  lecture  was  occupied  with,  an  examination  of 
those  notices  of  Gnostic  doctrines  or  practices  which  are 
to  be  found  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament  down 
to  the  death  of  St.  Paul,  a  date  not  more  than  three  years 
earlier  than  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Before  pro- 
ceeding to  examine  the  later  historical  notices  of  the 
same  errors  which  are  to  be  found  in  those  portions  of  the 
sacred  writings  which  belong  to  the  last  thirty  years  of 
the  century,  it  may  be  well  to  call  your  attention  for  a 
short  time  to  some  passages  of  the  earlier  Scriptures  in 
which  the  Gnostic  teaching  appears  to  be  noticed,  not  by 
way  of  historical  reference  to  that  which  was  already  in 
existence,  but  by  way  of  prediction  of  that  which  was  to 
come.  Three  passages  at  least  may  be  pointed  out  as 
containing  prophecies  of  this  kind,  two  from  the  writings 
of  St.  Paul,  and  a  third  from  those  of  St.  Peter.  The 
earliest  in  point  of  time  is  the  well-known  passage  in  the 
First  Epistle  to  Timothy  (iv.  1)  :  '  Now  the  Spirit  speaketh 
expressly,  that  in  the  latter  times  some  shall  depart  from 
the  faith,  giving  heed  to  seducing  spirits  and  doctrines  of 
devils;1  speaking  lies  in  hypocrisy,2  having  their  con- 


i.e.  doc-  2  ev  viroKpi<r€i  fyev8o\6yow,  properly, 

trines  emanating  from  evil  spirits,  not  '  in  the  hypocrisy  of  speakers  of  lies.' 

doctrines   about  devils.    Cf.    Pearson  The  A.  V.  connects  tyev$o\6ywv  with 

Minor  Theol.  Works  II.  p.  45,  and  Al-  Saifiovitav  inaccurately. 
ford  and  Ellicott  on  this  passage. 


LECT.  v.  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  66 

science  seared  with  a  hot  iron ;  forbidding  to  marry  and 
commanding  to  abstain  from  meats,  which  God  hath 
created  to  be  received  with  thanksgiving  of  them  which 
believe  and  know  the  truth.'  The  expression  sv  varepois 
Xpovoif,  which  our  translation  renders  in  the  latter  times, 
may  be  more  accurately  rendered  in  after  times,  meaning 
some  time  subsequent  to  that  at  which  the  Apostle  is 
writing,  but  by  no  means  necessarily  a  remote  future  or  a 
time  immediately  preceding  the  end  of  all  things.1  It 
seems  clear  indeed  from  the  context,  that  the  writer  is 
referring  to  an*  apostasy  the  beginning  of  which  was  dis- 
cernible in  his  own  day,2  though  its  full  development 
might  be  reserved  for  a  later  period.  The  false  asceticism 
which  we  have  already  pointed  out  as  corrupting  the 
Church  at  Colossse,  the  judging  in  meat  and  drink,  the 
Touch  not,  taste  not,  handle  not,  may  here  be  discerned  in 
the  command  to  abstain  from  meats,  though  it  may  be  that 
the  prohibition  of  marriage,  which  afterwards  formed  a 
conspicuous  feature  in  the  teaching  of  Saturninus  and 
Marcion,  had  not  yet  extended  itself  from  the  Jewish 
Essenes 3  to  any  body  claiming  the  name  of  Christians. 
That  the  passage  has  a  prophetic  reference  to  the  Gnostics 
of  the  second  century  is  expressly  maintained  by  the  early 
Fathers,  Clement  of  Alexandria  and  Tertullian ; 4  and  the 
historical  aptitude  of  the  reference  perhaps  receives  fur- 
ther confirmation  in  this,  as  in  the  next  prediction  to  be 
quoted,  by  the  use  of  the  expression  ( them  which  Jcnou* 
the  truth'  (sTrsyvcotcoa-iv  rrjv  dXrjOsiav) . 

The  other  prophecy  of  St.   Paul,   from  the   Second 


1  Cf.  Afford  and  Ellicott  on  this  cf.  Josephus,  Ant.  xviii.  1.    5,    B.J. 
passage.  ii.  8.  2  ;  Pliny,  N.  H.  v.  17. 

2  This  maybe  inferred  from  the  4  Clem.  Alex.  Strom.  iii.!2(p.  550, 
directions    given     to    Timothy    per-  Potter) ;  Tertullian,  De  Prcsscr.  H&r. 
sonally,  vv.  7-1 1.  c.  33.      Cf.  Pearson's  Minor  Works 

8  On  the  celibacy  of  the  Essenes,  II.  p.  51. 


66  NOTICES  OF  GNOSTICISM  LECT.  v. 

Epistle  to  Timothy  (iii.  1-7),  no  doubt  has  a  principal 
reference  to  events  still  future  and  to  be  fully  accom- 
plished in  the  times  immediately  preceding  the  second 
coming  of  the  Lord.  Yet  there  is  distinct  evidence  that 
the  Apostle  regarded  his  words  as  having  a  partial  fulfil- 
ment in  his  own  day  and  in  the  times  immediately  to 
follow  his  approaching  death.  Whilst  he  prophesies  that 
6  in  the  last  days  perilous  times  shall  come/  and  describes 
the  men  of  those  times  in  language  in  which  we  can  only 
very  partially  trace  a  likeness  to  the  false  teachers  of  the 
Apostolic  age,  yet  his  warning  to  his  own  son  in  the  faith, 
'  from  such  turn  away,'  and  the  transition  in  the  next  two 
verses  from  the  future  tense  to  the  present,  seems  to  indi- 
cate the  Apostle's  conviction  that  the  features  which  he 
prophetically  depicted  as  characterizing  the  men  of  the 
last  days  were  at  least  partially  realised  in  the  age  in 
which  he  was  writing.1  The  words,  '  For  of  this  sort  are 
they  which  creep  into  houses  and  lead  captive  silly 
women,'  might  remind  us  of  what  the  Apostle  himself 
may  have  seen  in  Simon  Magus  and  Helena,  and  in  the 
beginnings,  probably  already  discernible,  of  the  teaching 
and  practice  of  the  Nicolaitans : 2  while  the  language  in 
which  these  deluded  captives  are  further  described,  irdvrors 
/cal  fArjSsTrors  els  kirvyvtoviv  a\rjOslas  sXdslv 
a,  seems  to  imply  that  one  of  the  chief  allurements 
of  this  teaching  was  the  promise  which  it  held  out  of 
attaining  to  a  superior  knowledge. 

The  third  predictive  passage,  written  probably  about 
the  same  time  with  the  last,  is  from  the  Second  Epistle  of 
St.  Peter,  and  is  one  of  which  the  fulfilment  appears  to 
have  followed  very  closely  upon  the  prophecy.  In  this 
passage,  as  in  the  one  just  cited  from  St.  Paul,  the  cha- 

1  Cf.  Bp.  Bull,  Sermon  xv,  Works  I.  p.  372  (ed.  1827). 

2  Cf.  Burton,  B.  L.  p.  152. 


LECT.  v.  J^  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  67 

racteristics  of  the  false  teachers  who  are  condemned  by  the 
Apostle  seem  to  comprise  the  two  features  of  immoral 
living  and  pretension  to  a  peculiar  knowledge.     '  There 
shall   be/   he  writes,    'false   teachers    among   you,   who 
privily  shall  bring  in  damnable  heresies,  even  denying  the 
Lord  that  bought  them,  .  .  .  and  many  shall  follow  their 
pernicious  ways ;  by  reason  of  whom  the  way  of  truth 
shall  be  evil   spoken   of.'1     In  the  continuation  of  the 
passage  the  same  persons  are  spoken  of  as  presumptuous, 
as  despising  government,  as  speaking  evil1  of  the  things 
that  they  understand  not ; 2  and  a  little  later  it  'is  said, 
'  Spots  they  are  and  blemishes,  sporting  themselves  with 
their  own  deceivings  while  they  feast  with  you;  having 
eyes  full  of  adultery  and  that  cannot  cease  from  sin  ;  be- 
guiling  unstable    souls ;    an   heart   they  have,  exercised 
with  covetous  practices  ;  cursed  children ;  which  have  for- 
saken the  right  way,  and  are  gone  astray,  following  the 
way  of  Balaam  the  son  of  Bosor,  who  loved  the  wages  of 
unrighteousness.' 3  .  .  .     And  again  he  continues,  '  For 
when  they  speak  great  swelling  words  of  vanity,  they 
allure    through   the   lusts   of   the   flesh,   through   much 
wantonness,  those  that  were   clean   escaped   [rovs   ovra)9 
y  al.  those  that  are  hardly  escaping,  rovs  ohiyws 
from  them  who  live  in  error.     While  they 
promise  them  liberty,  they  themselves  are  the  servants  of 
corruption.'4 

In  these  words  we  have  a  description  of  a  false  teaching 
and  practice  partly  already  present  when  the  Apostle 
wrote,  but  to  be  further  developed  hereafter,  proceeding 
from  persons  who  bore  the  name  of  Christians  and  took 
part  in  the  Christian  feasts,  but  whose  immoral  lives  were 
the  occasion  of  calumnious  accusations  against  the  whole 

1  2  Peter  ii.  1,  2.  s  2  Peter  ii.  13,  15. 

2  vv.  10,  12.  *  ii.  18,  19. 

F  2 


68  NOTICES  OF  GNOSTICISM  IECT.  v. 

body  of  the  Church :  persons  moreover,  who  laid  claim  to 
a  liberty  which  placed  them  above  the  ordinary  restraints 
of  morality,  and  who,  under  this  pretext,  seduced  many 
that  had  once  been  converts  to  the  Christian  faith.  How 
exactly  this  description  applies  to  some  of  the  Gnostics  of 
the  next  century  will  be  seen  hereafter,  but  there  is 
evidence  also  of  its  partial  accomplishment  in  the  Apo- 
stolic age  itself,  as  indeed  the  state  of  things  here  described 
is  one  of  the  natural  results  of  teaching  extant  in  that 
age.  The  Gnostic  tenet  of  the  evil  nature  of  matter,  and 
the  consequent  worthlessness  of  the  body,  might  lead  and 
did  lead  with  them,  as  in  other  times  and  countries,  to 
two  very  opposite  moral  results.  In  some,  as  we  have 
already  seen,  it  manifested  itself  in  a  spurious  asceticism, 
which  strove  in  every  possible  way  to  mortify  the  flesh  as 
a  means  of  emancipating  the  soul  from  its  influence.  But 
in  the  eyes  of  others  the  soul  was  everything,  the  bqdy 
was  nothing.  Provided  the  soul  were  furnished  with  the 
true  knowledge,  it  would  derive  no  pollution  from  a  thing 
so  worthless  and  so  foreign  to  it  as  a  material  body ;  all 
bodily  actions  therefore  were  wholly  indifferent,  and 
might  be  practised  at  will  without  affecting  the  sublime 
state  of  the  wise  soul.  Some  at  a  later  period  even  went 
further  than  this,  and  maintained  that  the  moral  law,  with 
the  whole  Jewish  economy,  having  proceeded  from  an  evil 
being,  it  was  a  duty  in  the  enlightened  man  to  transgress 
the  law,  in  order  to  free  himself  from  the  yoke  of  the 
Creator  of  the  material  world.1  The  ascetic  side  of  this 
teaching  we  have  already  seen  noticed  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Colossians  and  in  the  First  Epistle  to  Timothy ;  the  licen- 
tious side  we  have  now  seen  partially  described  in  the 
Second  Epistle  to  Timothy,  and  more  fully  in  the  contem- 

1  Of.  Burton,  13.  L.  p.  41. 


LECT.  v.  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  69 

poraneous  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter,  and  we  shall  after- 
wards see  it  noticed  again  in  the  writings  of  St.  John. 

But  before  proceeding  to  these  last  writings,  it  will  be 
necessary  to  call  your  attention  to  another  book  of  the 
New  Testament,  which,  as  regards  the  time  of  its  compo- 
sition, may,  I  think,  be  most  fitly  assigned  to  some  period 
intermediate  between  the  deaths  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul 
and  the  appearance  of  St.  John's  writings  towards  the 
end  of  the  century.  I  mean  the  Epistle  of  St.  Jude.  The 
resemblance  between  this  Epistle  and  the  Second  of  St. 
Peter  is  too  close  to  be  accounted  for  by  undesigned  coin- 
cidences, and  we  must  suppose  that  one  of  the  writers  has 
availed  himself  of  a  similarity  of  circumstances  to  repeat 
in  substance  the  rebukes  and  warnings  of  his  brother 
Apostle.  Some  eminent  modern  critics  have  attempted, 
on  the  very  precarious  evidence  of  style,  to  assign  the 
priority  in  time  of  writing  to  St.  Jude ;  but  there  are  two 
circumstances  which  appear  to  me  to  prove  most  conclu- 
sively that  St.  Jude's  Epistle  was  written  after  that  of  St. 
Peter,  and  with  express  reference  to  it.  The  first  is,  that 
the  evils  which  St.  Peter  speaks  of  as  partly  future,  St. 
Jude  describes  as  now  present.  The  one  says,  '  There 
shall  be  false  teachers  among  you ; ' !  the  other  says, 
'  There  are  certain  men  crept  in  unawares,  who  were  be- 
fore of  old  ordained  to  this  condemnation.' 2  The  other 
circumstance  is  still  more  to  the  point.  St.  Peter  in  his 
Second  Epistle  has  the  remarkable  words,  TOVTO  Trpwrov 
,  on  sXevo-ovrai,  sir  sa^aTov  rwv  r)fj,sp(av  [al.  eir 
r&v  rjfjLSpuv]  sfjLTraircrai,  icard,  Tas  I8ias  avr&v 
TTopevofjievoi.3  St.  Jude  has  the  same  passage, 
repeated  almost  word  for  word,  but  expressly  introduced 


1  2  Peter  ii.  1.     The  future  tense  2  Jude  4. 

is  continued  through  the  two  following  8  2  Peter  iii. 


70  NOTICES  OF  GNOSTICISM  LECT.  v. 


as  a  citation  of  Apostolic  language  :   VJJLSIS  Se,  a 
fjivr)a-0r)TS  TWV  prj/juaTcov  ra)V  TrpostpTjfjisvcav  VTTO  T&V  a 
TOV  Kvpiov  rj/jiwv  *\rj(rov  XpiaTov,  OTI,  sXeyov  vyCiv  on  sv 
%/oov&>    [al.  JTT'  sa^drov  TOV  %povov]  saovTCU  E/jLtraiKTai,,  Kara 
TCLS  savi&v  sTriBv/juias  TropsvofjLSvoi  T&V  ao-s{3siwv.1      The  use 
of  the  plural  number  (rwv  airoaroXcov)  may  be  explained  by 
supposing  that  the  writer   may   also   have   intended  to 
allude  to  passages  similar  in  import,  though  differently 
expressed,  in  the  writings  of  St.  Paul  (such  as  1  Tim. 
iv.  1,  2  Tim.  iii.  1),  but  the  verbal  coincidence  can  hardly 
be  satisfactorily  explained,  unless  we  suppose  that  St.  Jude 
had  principally  in  his  thoughts,  and  was  actually  citing 
the  language  of  St.  Peter.2     On  these  grounds  we  are 
•  justified  in  regarding  the  Epistle  of  St.  Jude  as  written 
after  the  death  of  St.  Peter,  and  probably  some  time  after, 
when  the  evils,  which  the  earlier  writer  saw  only  in  their 
commencement,  had  attained  to  a  fuller  development  and 
could  be  spoken  of  as  actually  in  being,  though  not  even 
yet  so  far  advanced  as  they  appear  subsequently  in  the 
Eevelation  of  St.  John.3 

In  the  language  of  St.  Jude,  as  in  that  of  St.  Peter, 
which  it  closely  imitates,  we  may  clearly  discern  a  refer- 
ence to  the  Gnostic  sect  of  the  Nicolaitans,4  mentioned 
by  name  in  the  Revelation.  The  comparison,  in  all  these 
passages,  of  the  error  condemned  with  that  of  Balaam 


1  Jude  17,  18.  commandment  of   us  the  Apostles,' 

2  Cf.  Wordsworth   on    both  pas-  in  general  terms.    He   does  not  cite 
sages,  and  Hengstenberg  on  the  Beve-  the  next  verse  as  an  Apostolic  predic- 
lation,  I.  p.  14  (Eng.  Trans.).     Alford  tion, 

attempts  to  explain  the  coincidence  by  3  Cf.  Hengstenberg  on  Revelation, 

supposing  that  St.  Peter's  words  are  I.  pp.  14,  15,  Wordsworth,  Introduc- 

also  a  reminiscence  of  things  before  tion  to  St.  Jude,  and  Schaff,  Hist,  of 

said  by  the  Apostles.      But  St.  Peter  Apost.  Church  II.  p.  374. 

only  mentions  in  a  previous  verse,  not  4  That  the  Nicolaitans  were  Gnos- 

directly  connected    with    this,    'the  tics,    see  Burton,  Bampton  Lectures 

words  of  the  holy  Prophets  and  the  p.  145. 


LECT.  Y.  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  71 

is  decisive  as  to  the  identity  of  the  persons  intended.1 
The  other  characteristics  noted  by  St.  Peter  are  also  re- 
peated by  St.  Jude — their  denial  of  the  Lord;  their  profli- 
gate lives ;  their  contempt  of  government,  and  evil  speak- 
ing of  dignities  and  of  things  that  they  know  not ;  their 
pollution  of  the  feasts  of  charity ;  their  great  swelling 
words.  The  antinomian,  no  less  than  the  ascetic  side  of 
Gnosticism,  seems  by  this  time  to  have  fully  manifested 
itself. 

Of  the  writings  of  St.  John  we  may  perhaps,  though 
with  considerable  hesitation,  assign  the  earliest  date  to 
the  Apocalypse.  The  Gospel  we  may  with  tolerable  con- 
fidence regard  as  prior  to  the  Epistles;  and,  in  the  absence 
of  more  conclusive  evidence,  we  have  at  least  the  authority 
of  tradition  for  placing  the  Apocalypse  before  the  Gospel.2 
At  all  events,  it  will  be  convenient  to  adopt  this  order 
in  our  present  examination,  on  account  of  the  illustration 
which  the  Apocalypse  affords  to  the  two  Epistles  which 
we  have  just  been  considering.  The  general  testimony 
of  antiquity  assigns  the  date  of  the  Apocalyptic  vision 
to  the  close  of  the  reign  of  Domitian,  i.e.  to  the  year 
95  or  96,3  nearly  thirty  years  after  the  death  of  St. 
Peter  and  St.  Paul,  a  date  at  which  we  may  expect  that 
the  heresies  which  had  only  begun  to  manifest  them- 
selves to  the  elder  Apostles  would  have  attained  to  some 
maturity,  and  perhaps  have  divided  themselves  into 
various  schools. 

The  Revelation  is  the  only  book  of  Scripture  in  which 


1  See  2  Peter  ii.   15;  Jude    11;  says  that  St.  John  wrote  his  Gospel 
Kev.  ii.  14.  while  residing  at  Ephesus. 

2  Clement     of    Alexandria,    Quis  *  So   Irenseus,  Eusebius,  Jerome, 
Dives  salvus   §  42  (Potter,   p.  959),  and  others.     The  only  exception  is 
speaks  of  St.  John  as  having  taken  up  Epiphanius,  in  whose  statement  there 
his  abode  at  Ephesus  after  his   de-  is  clearly  an  error.     See  Alford's  Pro- 
parture  from  Patmos.   Irenseus,  iii.  1,  legomena. 


72  NOTICES  OF  GNOSTICISM  LECT.  v. 

we  find  a  sect  of  the  Gnostics  mentioned  by  name ;  for  the 
general  testimony  of  the  Fathers  warrants  us  in  classifying 
as  a  branch  of  the  Gnostics  the  persons  who  are  there 
spoken  of  under  the  name  of  Nicolaitans.1  'This  thou 
hast,'  the  Apostle  is  bidden  to  write  to  the  angel  of  the 
Church  of  Ephesus,  '  that  thou  hatest  the  deeds  of  the 
Nicolaitans,  which  I  also  hate.' 2  And  again,  to  the 
angel  of  the  Church  of  Pergamos  ;  *  I  have  a  few  things 
against  thee,  because  thou  hast  there  them  that  hold 
the  doctrines  of  Balaam,  who  taught  Balak  to  cast  a 
stumbling-block  before  the  children  of  Israel,  to  eat 
things  sacrificed  to  idols,  and  to  commit  fornication. 
So  hast  thou  also  them  that  hold  the  doctrine  of  the 
Nicolaitans,  which  thing  I  hate.'  3  Two  characteristics 
of  the  Nicolaitans  are  here  mentioned  :  first,  their  eating 
of  things  offered  to  idols ;  secondly,  their  immoral  living.4 
The  former  connects  them  with  the  <yvw<ris  reproved  by  St. 
Paul  in  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians ; a  while  the 
latter,  together  with  the  comparison  to  Balaam,  connects 
them  with  the  false  teachers  denounced  by  St.  Peter  and 
St.  Jude. 

We  have  the  testimony  of  Irenseus,  followed  by  Hippo- 
lytus,6  as  well  as  of  Clement  of  Alexandria,7  for  deriving 
the  name  of  these  heretics  from  their  reputed  founder, 
Nicolas,  the  proselyte  of  Antioch,  one  of  the  seven 
deacons,  whose  native  country,  Syria,  was  one  of  the 
homes  of  early  Gnosticism.  It  is  true  that  the  anec- 
dote related  of  Nicolas  by  Clement  seems  to  represent  his 

1  Burton,    $.    L.     p.    145.     Cf.       16.     Cf.  Burton,  5,  L.  p.  147  ;  Her- 
Neander,  Ch.  Hist.  II.  p.  119.  zog,  X.p.  333. 

2  Rev.  ii.  6.  *  1  Cor.  viii.  1. 

•  Eev.  ii.  14,  15.  6  Irenaeus,  i.  27 ;  Hippolytus,  E.H. 

*  Ofcws  %xfls  Kal  <»*  K-T-X-  Rev-  »•       vii-  36-  Neander  (Ch.  Hist.  II.  p.  122) 
15 ;  i.e.  as  Balaam  taught  Balak  of  old,       considers  the  tradition  apocryphal. 

so  do  the  Nicolaitans  teach  now.    The  7  Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  iii.  4  (p.  523 

reference  is  to  Num.  xxv.  1,  2,  xxxi.      Potter).      Cf.  Eusebius,  H.  E.  iii.  29. 


LECT.  v.  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  73 

so-called  followers  as  giving  a  false  interpretation  to  the 
teaching  of  their  master ; 1  but  on  the  other  hand  both 
Irenseus  and  Hippolytus  represent  Nicolas  himself  as 
teaching  that  all  actions  are  morally  indifferent,  and  the 
latter  expressly  speaks  of  him  as  an  apostate  from  sound 
doctrine.  Even  the  anecdote  related  by  Clement,  while  it 
appears  to  deny  the  charge  of  personal  licentiousness, 
betrays  at  least  a  want  of  reverence  for  the  sanctity  of 
marriage.2  The  ingenious  conjecture  of  some  modern 
critics,  that  the  name  Nicolaitans  was  not  derived  from  a 
person,  but  is  a  Greek  equivalent  for  the  name  of  Balaam, 
which  means  destroyer  or  corrupter  of  the  people,3  is  pro- 
bably more  ingenious  than  true.  It  is  opposed  to  the 
earliest  tradition,  and  is  not  without  etymological  diffi- 
culty, destroyer  or  corrupter  being  by  no  means  the  same 
as  conqueror.4 

Another  passage  in  the  same  chapter  of  the  Apoca- 
lypse, which  has  probably  a  reference  to  Gnosticism,  occurs 
in  the  message  to  the  angel  of  the  Church  of  Thyatira ; 
'  Unto  you  I  say,  and  unto  the  rest  in  Thyatira,  as  many 
as  have  not  this  doctrine,  and  which  have  not  known  the 
depths  of  Satan,  as  they  speak.' 5  In  the  expression,  OVK 
eyvwo-av  ra  fidOy  rov  o-arava,  some  commentators  have  sup- 
posed an  ironical  allusion  to  the  Gnostic  claim  to  a  know- 
ledge of  the  deep  things  of  God;6  but  it  seems  more 
natural  to  refer  it  to  their  favourite  inquiry  into  the 
nature  and  origin  of  evil,7  or  even  more  especially  to  the 
boast  of  the  Ophites.8 


1  Zn  irapax^<ra<r0ai  rfj  ffapn\  5e?.  Church  II.  p.  377. 

2  Cf.  Harvey's    Irenaus,    Introd.  6  Kev.  ii.  24. 

p.  Ixx.  6  Schaff,  II.  p.  378. 

8  See  Hengstenberg  on  Kev.  ii.  6,  7  Cf.  Herzog,  Encykl.,  Art.  '  Niko- 

and  Neander,  Ch.   Hist.  II.  p.  120;  laiten,' vol.  X.  p.  888. 
DV  yta  (absorptio  populi).  *  Hippol.  v.  6.  See  below,  Lecture 

4  Cf.   Schaff,  Hist,  of  the  Apost.  VII,  on  the  Ophites,  p.  105. 


74  NOTICES  OF  GNOSTICISM  LECT.  v. 

As  regards  the  Gospel  of  St.  John,  we  have  the  ex- 
press testimony  of  Irenseus,  that  it  was  written  to  oppose 
that  form  of  the  Gnostic  heresy  which  was  taught  by 
Cerinthus,  and,  before  him,  by  the  Mcolaitans.1  The 
nature  of  that  heresy,  so  far  as  it  concerns  our  present 
inquiry,  may  be  stated  in  the  words  of  the  same  Father : 
£  A  certain  Cerinthus,'  he  says,  '  in  Asia,  taught  that  the 
world  was  not  made  by  the  Supreme  God,  but  by  some 
power  altogether  separate  and  distant  from  that  Sovereign 
Power  which  is  over  the  universe,  and  one  ignorant  of  the 
God  who  is  over  all  things.  He  taught  moreover,  that 
Jesus  was  not  born  of  a  virgin  (for  this  seemed  to  him 
to  be  impossible),  but  was  the  son  of  Joseph  and  Mary, 
born  after  the  manner  of  other  men ;  though  pre-eminent 
above  other  men  in  justice  and  prudence  and  wisdom : 
and  that  after  his  baptism  the  Christ,  in  the  form  of  a 
dove,  descended  upon  him  from  that  Sovereign  Power 
which  is  over  all  things  :  and  that  he  then  announced  the 
unknown  Father,  and  wrought  miracles;  but  that  at  the 
end  the  Christ  departed  again  from  Jesus,  and  that  Jesus 
suffered  and  was  raised  from  the  dead,  while  the  Christ 
continued  impassible  as  a  spiritual  being.'  2 

That  the  first  chapter  of  St.  John's  Gospel  contains 
passages  directly  opposed  to  this  heresy  is  evident  on  the 
most   casual   inspection.      The  words,   'All  things  were 
made  by  Him,  and  without  Him  was  not  anything  made 
•  that  was  made,' 3  strike  directly  at  the  root  of  that  false 
\  principle  common  to  all  the  Gnostic  schools,  which  re- 
garded the  Creator  of  the  world  as  a  being  distinct  and 
remote  from  the  Redeemer  and  from  the  Supreme  God ; 
while  the  declaration  that  '  the  Word  was  made  flesh  and 


1  Irenseus  iii.  11.  restored  by  Harvey  as   the   original 

2  Irenseus  i.  26,  closely  followed       text  of  Irenseus. 
by  Hippolytus  vii.  33.     The  latter  is  3  John  i.  3. 


LECT.  v.  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  75 

dwelt  among  us,' l  is  equally  opposed  to  that  other  error 
of  Cerinthus,  which  taught  that  the  man  Jesus  and  the 
spiritual  being  Christ  were  wholly  separate  beings,  only 
temporarily  united  by  the  indwelling  of  the  one  in  the 
other. 

We  have  also  other  notices,  which  fix  Cerinthus  as 
having  been  a  contemporary  of  St.  John,2  and  it  is  quite 
possible  that  his  doctrines  may  have  been  directly  before 
the  mind  of  the  Apostle  when  he  wrote  the  above  passages. 
But  though  Cerinthus  may  have  been  one  of  the  first  who 
exhibited  the  doctrines  of  the  Jewish  Alexandrian  philo- 
sophy in  the  form  of  a  heresy  concerning  the  Person  of 
Christ,  we  must  look  to  an  earlier  writer  for  the  source  of 
the  error  and  for  an  explanation  of  the  language  in  which 
the  Apostle's  protest  is  couched.3  Cerinthus,  as  we  are 
expressly  told,  though  he  taught  in  Asia,  learnt  the  prin- 
ciples of  his  heresy  in  Egypt ;  and  the  two  great  errors  of 
Gnosticism — the  separation  of  the  Creator  from  the  Su-  [ 
preme  God,  and  the  abhorrence  of  matter  as  the  source  of 
all  evil — may  be  found  before  Cerinthus,  in  that  Alex- 
andrian Judaism  which  has  its  representative  in  Philo. 
The  choice  of  the  term  o  Aoyos  as  a  designation  of  Christ, 
the  assertion  of  the  eternity  and  proper  Deity  and  Incar- 
nation of  the  Logos,  have  a  direct  relation  and  antagonism 
to  the  Jewish  Gnosticism  of  Philo,  as  well  as  to  the 
Christian  Gnosticism  of  Cerinthus.  There  was  in  fact 
an  earlier  Gnosticism  founded  on  the  perversion  of  the 
Law,  as  there  was  a  later  Gnosticism  founded  on  the 
perversion  of  the  Gospel ;  and  it  is  possible  that  when  St. 
John  wrote,  the  influence  of  both  had  begun  to  be  felt  in 
the  Christian  Church,  and  had  modified  to  some  extent 


1  John  i.  14.  8  Of.   Dorner,    Person   of  Christ 

2  Cf.   Irenseus,   iii.    3;    cited  by      I.   p.    17    (Eng.   Tr.),    and   Burton, 
Eusebius,  H.  E,  iii.  28,  iv.  21.  Bampton  Lectures  p.  223. 


76  NOTICES  OF  GNOSTICISM  LECT.  v. 

the  language  of  its  theology.1  The  aim  of  the  Apostle,  in 
adopting  this  language  as  a  vehicle  of  Christian  teaching, 
seems  to  have  been  both  to  correct  the  errors  which  had 
actually  crept  into  the  Church,  and  also  to  counteract  the 
influence  of  the  source  from  which  they  sprang. 

As  the  Gospel  of  St.  John  was  in  some  portions  of  its 
language  directed  against  the  teaching  of  Cerinthus,  who, 
in  common  with  the  Ebionites,  denied  the  Deity  of  our 
Lord,  so  the  language  of  his  Epistles  seems  partly  to  be 
directed  against  another  form  of  the  Gnostic  error — that 
of  the  Docetse,  who  denied  His  proper  humanity.  The 
opening  words  of  the  First  Epistle, c  That  which  was  from 
the  beginning,  which  we  have  heard,  which  we  have  seen 
with  our  eyes,  which  we  have  looked  upon,  and  our  hands 
have  handled,  of  the  word  of  life — that  which  we.  have 
seen  and  heard  declare  we  unto  you,' 2  announce  the 
direct  sensible  evidence  of  an  eyewitness  and  personal 
friend  to  the  reality  of  that  human  body  in  which  his 
Master  lived  on  the  earth;  while  the  subsequent  language 
of  the  same  Epistle  is  yet  more  explicit  and  more  dis- 
tinctly controversial  in  its  tone  : 3  *  Beloved,  believe  not 
every  spirit,  but  try  the  spirits  whether  they  are  of  God, 
because  many  false  prophets  are  gone  out  into  the  world. 
Hereby  know  ye  the  Spirit  of  God ;  every  spirit  that  con- 
fesseth  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh  is  of  God, 
and  every  spirit  that  confesseth  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is 
come  in  the  flesh  is  not  of  God ;  and  this  is  that  spirit  of 
antichrist,  whereof  ye  have  heard  that  it  should  come, 

1  See  Burton,  Bampton   Lectuns      Christian  spirit.       The  Apostle    is 
p.  218.  clearly  warning  his  reader  against  a 

2  1  John  i.  1-3.  false  form  of  Christianity.     The  as- 
8  It  seems  impossible  to  refer  this      Bumption  of  some  critics  (e.g.  Kitschl, 

language  to  the  mere  Jewish  expecta-  Altkatholische  Kirche  pp.  342,  454) 
tion  of  a  future  Messiah.  Jews  would  of  the  late  origin  of  Docetism  is  per- 
never  pretend  to  be  inspired  by  a  fectly  arbitrary. 


LECT.  v.  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  77 

and  even  now  already  is  it  in  the  world.' !  The  same  lan- 
guage is  repeated  in  the  Second  Epistle  :  '  For  many  de- 
ceivers are  entered  into  the  world,  who  confess  not  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh.  This  is  a  deceiver  and 
an  antichrist.' 2  It  is  also  possible,  as  a  learned  writer  on 
this  subject  has  remarked,  that  St.  John  may  have  had 
the  same  heresy  in  view,  when  in  his  Gospel  he  bears  wit- 
ness in  such  significant  and  emphatic  language  to  the 
actual  issue  of  blood  and  water  from  the  side  of  Him 
whom  they  pierced  :  '  And  he  that  saw  it  bare  record,  and 
his  record  is  true ;  and  he  knoweth  that  he  saith  true, 
that  ye  might  believe.' 3 

Other  passages  in  St.  John's  First  Epistle  seem,  from 
the  terms  in  which  they  are  expressed,  to  have  a  more 
direct  reference  to  the  heresy  of  Cerinthus,  which  we  have 
already  noticed  in  connection  with  the  Gospel.  The 
vehement  language  in  the  second  chapter  of  this  Epistle, 
'  Who  is  a  liar,  but  he  that  denieth  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ  ? '  and  the  corresponding  expression  in  the  fourth 
chapter,  '  Whosoever  shall  confess  that  Jesus  is  the  Son 
of  God,  God  dwelleth  in  him,  and  he  in  God,'  though 
capable  of  being  referred  to  other  forms  of  error,  yet 
acquire  an  especial  significance  when  we  remember  the 
existence  at  this  very  time  of  heretical  teachers  who 
maintained  that  Jesus  and  the  Christ  were  two  separate 
beings,  and  distinguished  between  Christ  who  descended 
from  the  Supreme  God,  and  Jesus  the  man  upon  whom 
he  descended.4 

1  1  John  iv.  1-3.-  by  water  and  blood'  (J?.  L.  p.  188). 

2  2  John  7.  This  is  very  possible,  though  it  seems 

3  John  xix.  35.     Cf.  Burton,  2?.  L.  more  natural  to  understand  the  blood 
p.  170.  as  referring  to  Christ's  death,  than  to 

4  Cf.  Burton,    Bampton  Lectures  His  birth  into  the  world.     We  might 
p.  185.    Dr.  Burton  also  sees  a  refer-  perhaps  paraphrase  the  text,  'Christ 
ence  to  Gnosticism  (Cerinthianism)  in  was  not  merely  joined  to  Jesuc  at  His 
1  John  v.  6,  '  not  by  water  only,  but  baptism,  to    leave  Him  before  His 


78  NOTICES  OF  GNOSTICISM,  LECI.  v. 

It  is  not  without  profit  for  us  in  these  latter  days  to 
examine  this  record  of  the  Apostolic  treatment  of  early 
and,  it  might  be  thought,  obsolete  heresies.  There  are  not 
wanting  teachers  at  the  present  time  who  tell  us,  in  the 
spirit  of  the  Gnostics  of  old,  that  dogmas  and  historical 
facts  are  no  part  of  the  Christian  religion ;  that  there  is  a 
spiritual  sense  in  which  these  things  may  be  understood, 
which  is  superior  to  the  letter ;  that  we  may  be  Christian 
in  spirit  without  troubling  ourselves  about  the  facts  of 
Christ's  earthly  life,  or  the  supernatural  doctrines  con- 
nected with  His  Person.  How  far  this  teaching  is  en- 
titled to  call  itself  by  the  name  of  Christian  may  be  tested 
by  the  evidence  of  him  who  of  all  the  first  teachers  of 
Christianity  can  least  be  accused  of  a  harsh  or  narrow 
view  of  the  terms  of  Christian  communion ;  who  loved  to 
dwell,  not  on  opinions  about  Christ,  but  on  the  hope  and 
spirit  of  Christ  Himself;  who  is  never  weary  of  enforcing 
the  precept  of  love  to  our  brethren ;  whose  last  breath 
passed  away  in  the  constant  repetition  of  the  one  summary 
of  his  teaching,  '  Little  children,  love  one  another.'  Of 
all  men  he  would  surely  be  the  last  to  deny  the  claim  of 
Christian  brotherhood  to  any  that  could  truly  urge  it. 
Yet  it  was  a  dogma — the  Incarnation  of  the  Divine  Son — a 
historical  fact — the  birth  of  Jesus  Christ  and  His  life  as  a 
man — which  called  forth  from  his  lips  the  strong  words  of 
indignation  and  abhorrence  against  all  gainsayers  :  '  Who 
is  a  liar,  but  he  that  denieth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  ? 
....  Every  spirit  that  confesseth  not  that  Jesus  Christ 
is  come  in  the  flesh  is  not  of  God  :  and  this  is  that  spirit 
of  antichrist.3 1 

crucifixion.     It  is  one  and  the  same      the  cross.' 

Jesus  Christ,  who  manifested  Himself  l  I  John  ii.  22,  iv.  3. 

by  water  in  baptism  and  by  blood  on 


LECT.  vi.        SIMON  MAGUS  AND  MENANDER.  79 


LECTURE    VI. 

PRECURSORS  OF  GNOSTICISM — SIMON  MAGUS  AND  MENANDER. 

WHEN,  from  the  incidental  notices  of  Gnostic  doctrines 
existing  during  the  lifetime  of  the  Apostles,  we  proceed  to 
inquire  concerning  the  history  of  these  doctrines  and  the 
persons  by  whom  they  were  taught,  we  find  the  early 
Fathers  almost  unanimously  agreed  in  referring  the  origin 
of  the  Gnostic  heresies  to  a  man  of  whom  a  brief  and 
passing  mention  is  made  in  the  New  Testament,  and  who 
thus  serves  as  the  connecting  link  between  Scripture  and 
ecclesiastical  tradition  as  regards  the  history  of  false 
doctrine.1  Simon  Magus,  the  person  in  question,  appears 
sufficiently  early  in  the  Apostolic  history  to  allow  of  the 
spread  of  his  doctrines  almost  pari  passu  with  the  preach- 
ing of  Christianity,  and  to  account  for  the  notices  of  those 
doctrines  which  we  have  already  pointed  out  as  existing 
in  the  Apostolic  writings.  Within  seven  years  (to  take 
the  longest  probable  interval)  after  the  Lord's  Ascension,2 
we  read  that  when  the  Church  was  scattered  abroad  after 
the  martyrdom  of  St.  Stephen,  Philip  went  down  to  a  city 
(not  the  city,  as  in  the  A.Y.)  of  Samaria,3  and  preached 
Christ  unto  them.  .  .  .  'But  the  re  was  a  certain  man 

1  For  the  authorities  who  regard      even  less. 

Simon  as  the  parent  of  Gnosticism,  3  The   name  of  the  city  is   not 

see  Burton,  Bampton  Lectures  p.  87-  mentioned.      Possibly  Sychar  or  Si- 

2  For  the  chronology,  see  Alford's  chem,  which  is  mentioned  in  the  same 
Prolegomena  to  the  Acts,  p.  22.  Others  manner,  John  iv.  5. 

shorten  the  interval  to  one  year,  and 


80  PRECURSORS  OF  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  vi. 

called  Simon,  which  beforetime  in  the  same  city  used  sor- 
cery, and  bewitched  the  people  of  Samaria,  giving  out  that 
himself  was  some  great  one ;  to  whom  they  all  gave  heed, 
from  the  least  to  the  greatest,  saying,  This  man  is  the 
great  Power  of  God.' l  If  we  adopt  the  reading  which  has 
the  best  claim  to  be  considered  as  the  true  text,  OVTOS 
EGTIV  f)  ^vvafiis  rov  ©soO  rj  Ka\ov/jLsvrj  fj,£yd\rj,  (  This  man  is 
that  power  of  God  which  is  called  great,'  i.e.  which  is 
known  as  the  great  one,  we  obtain  a  clearer  insight  into 
Simon's  pretensions  than  is  afforded  by  the  reading  from 
which  our  version  is  made.  The  language  of  the  Sama- 
ritans may  be  most  naturally  understood  as  an  acknow- 
ledgment of  the  truth  of  Simon's  claims  in  his  own 
behalf ; 2  and  it  would  thus  appear  that  Simon  maintained 
the  existence  of  various  powers  or  emanations  from  God, 
and  gave  himself  out  to  be  the  chief  of  all. 

We  are  at  once  reminded  of  the  Swa/usis  or  (  divine 
powers '  of  Philo,  and  of  the  supreme  power,  the  Aoyos,  and 
we  may  conclude  that  Simon  had  at  least  borrowed  from 
the  Jewish  Alexandrian  philosophy  so  much  of  this  hypo- 
thesis as  was  convenient  for  his  own  purpose,3  though  in 
representing  this  supreme  power  as  assuming  a  human 
body  in  his  own  person,  he  seems  at  first  sight  to  place 
himself  in  distinct  opposition  to  the  spirit  of  that  philo- 
sophy— an  opposition  which  can  only  be  avoided  by  attri- 
buting to  him  a  Docetic  doctrine,  which,  as  we  shall  see 
hereafter,  there  is  some  ground  for  ascribing  to  him. 
Simon  indeed  seems  to  have  borrowed  indiscriminately 
from  Alexandrianism  and  Christianity,  in  order  to  exalt 
himself  and  his  teaching  as  the  rival  of  both.  In  the 
Jewish  philosophy  of  Alexandria  the  Logos,  or  revealed 

1  Actsviii.  5,  9,  10.  of  the  Alexandrian  philosohy.      See 

2  This  obviates  De  Wette's  objection      Alford  here. 

that  the  Samaritan  people  were   not  8  Cf.    Gfroerer's    Philo,    vol.    II. 

likely  to  be  familiar  withthe  language      p.  372. 


LECT.  vi.        SIMON  MAGUS  AND  MEN  AND  ER.  81 

God,  is  identified  with  the  Creator  of  the  world  and  with 
the  God  of  the  Jewish  people.     But  Simon,  a  Samaritan 
by  birth,1  and  a  teacher  among  the  Samaritan  people, 
represents  the  spirit  of  national  hatred,  hostile  alike  to 
the  philosophy  of  the  Jewish  Platonists  and  to  the  Chris- 
tian revelation  which  acknowledged  a  Messiah  of  Jewish 
birth.2     In  announcing  himself  as  the  supreme  Power  of 
God,  he  probably  intended  to  avail  himself  of  the  current 
language  of  the  Alexandrian  philosophy  to  support  his 
own   pretensions   to   a   mission   which    that    philosophy 
would  have  been  the  last  to  recognise,  and  at  the  same 
time  to  pervert  the  Christian  doctrine  of  God  manifest  in 
the  flesh  by  setting  up  himself  as  a  rival  Messiah,  in  the 
strictest  sense  of  the  term  an  Antichrist.     It  is  true  that, 
awed  for  a  time  by  the  superior  powers  of  the  preachers 
of  the  Gospel,  Simon  professed  himself  a  Christian  and 
submitted  to  be  baptized,  but  his  subsequent  conduct  says 
little  for  the  sincerity  of  his  profession ;  and  it  is  probable 
that  he  merely  regarded  the  Apostles  as  magicians  of 
higher  powers  than  himself,  and  wished  to  purchase  their 
gifts  for  his  own  purposes.3     At  all  events  the  momentary 
impression  in  favour  of  Christianity  seems  ultimately  to 
have  had  no  other  effect  than  to  stimulate  his  rivalry ; 
and  it  is  not  improbable  that  his  continued  assumption  of 
the  title  of  the  Logos  in  furtherance  of  an  antichristian 

1  Justin  Martyr,  himself  a  Sama-  zog,  vol.  XIV.  p.  392. 
ritan,  calls  Simon  a  native  of  Gitton  2  From  John  iv.  25  it  is  clear  that 

or  Gitta  in  Samaria,  Apol.  i,  c.  26  ;  the  Samaritans  expected  a  Messiah, 

cf.  Apol.  ii.  c.  15.  Justin's  own  birth-  but  it  is  probable  that  they  expected 

place  makes   him  in   this   respect   a  one  of  Israelitish  (i.e.  Samaritan,  as 

better  authority  than  Josephus  (Ant.  they   opposed    the    term    to   Jewish] 

xx.  7.  2),    even  supposing  that    the  birth.     At  least  this  is  the   view  of 

Jew  of  Cyprus  there  mentioned  is  the  the  later  Samaritans ;  cf.  Petermann 

same  person  with  Simon  Magus.    But  in  Herzog,  vol.  XIII.  p.  373. 
the  name  of  Simon  was  so  common  3  Moller  in  Herzog.  XIV.  p.   391. 

that  we  may  reasonably  suppose  them  Cf.  Milman,  Hist,  of  Christianity  II. 

to   have  been  different  persons.     Cf.  p.  45. 
Moller,  Art.  '  Simon  MagiiF,'  in  Her- 


82  PRECURSORS  OF  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  vi. 

teaching  may  have  had  some  share  in  prompting-  the  em- 
ployment of  the  same  term  by  St.  John  as  a  designation 
of  the  true  Messiah.     That  Simon  actually  adopted  this 
name,   as  well   as   the  cognate  term   Suvapif,  from   the 
Alexandrian    philosophy,    may    be    gathered    from    the 
language  attributed  to  him  by  St.  Jerome,  who  professes  to 
be  citing  from  his  writings :  'Ego  sum  Sermo  Dei,  ego  sum 
speciosus,  ego  paracletus,  ego  omnipotens,  ego  omnia  Dei.31 
According  to  another  account  given  by  St.  Irenseus,  Simon 
is  said  to  have  spoken  of  himself  as  having  appeared  to 
the  Jews  as  the  Son,  to  the  Samaritans  as  the  Father,  and 
to  the  Gentiles  as  the  Holy  Spirit2 — language  in  which 
we  may  probably  trace  the  distortion  of  Christian  terms 
in  an  heretical  sense,3  to  express  the  superiority  of  that 
Divine  manifestation  which  he  boasted  of  as  residing  in 
himself  to  those  which  had  been  made  of  the  same  Deity 
to  other  nations  through  other  representatives.     Another 
account,  which,  however  differing  in  details,  implies  the 
same  theoretical  doctrine,  is  alluded  to  by  Justin  Martyr, 
and  detailed  at  length  by  Irenseus.     '  Simon,'  says  the 
latter  author,  *  having  purchased  a  certain  woman  named 
Helena,  who  had  been  a  prostitute  in  the  city  of  Tyre, 
i  carried  her  about  with  him,  and  said  that  she  was  the  first 
Conception 4  of  his  mind,  the  mother  of  all  things,  by  whom 
in  the  beginning  he  conceived  the  thought  of  making  the 
angels  and  archangels  ;  for  that  this  Conception  (hanc  En- 

1  S.    Hieron.    in    Matt.   xxiv.    5  3  In  a  Sabellian  sense,  to  denote 
(Opera,  Vallarsii  VII.  p.  193).  not  three  Persons    but    only    three 

2  Irenseus,  c.  Hcer.  i.  23.    Cf.  Hip-  manifestations    of  the   same    being, 
polytus  Kef.  Har.  vi.  19  ;  Theodoret,  Cf.  Massuet,  Diss.  Prav.  in  Iren&um. 
Hcer.  Fab.  i.  1.  In  the  subsequent  Ian-  i.  §  100.  Massuet  gives  a  different  in- 
guage  of  Irenseus,  '  Esse  autem  se  sub-  terpretation  of  Simon's  purpose  in  as- 
limissimam  virtutem,  hoc  est  eum  qui  suming  these  three  relations. 

sit  super  omnia  Pater,' the  latter  words  *  swoiav,  Justin,  Apol.  i.  26  ;  and 

may   perhaps,    as    Burton    supposes  the  translator  of  Irenseus  himself  uses 

(B.  L.  p.  388),  be  a  gloss  of  Irenseus  the  Greek  word  just  below, 
himself  in  explanation  of  the  former. 


LECT.  vi.        SIMON  MAGUS  AND  MENANDER.  83 

noiari)  proceeded  forth  from  him,  and  knowing  her  father's 
wishes,  descended  to  the  lower  world,  and  produced  the 
angels  and  powers  ;  by  whom  also  he  said  that  this  world 
was  made.  But  after  she  had  produced  them,  she  was 
detained  by  them  through  envy,  since  they  were  unwilling 
to  be  considered  the  offspring  of  any  other  being  ;  for  he 
himself  was  entirely  unknown  by  them  ;  but  his  Concep- 
tion was  detained  by  those  powers  and  angels  which  were 
put  forth  from  her,  and  suffered  every  insult  from  them 
that  she  might  not  return  upward  to  her  father  ;  and  this 
went  so  far  that  she  was  even  confined  in  a  human  body, 
and  for  ages  passed  into  other  female  bodies,  as  if  from 
one  vessel  into  another.  He  said  also  that  she  was  that 
Helen  on  whose  account  the  Trojan  war  was  fought;  ..... 
and  that  after  passing  from  one  body  to  another,  and  con- 
stantly meeting  with  insult,  at  last  she  became  a  public 
prostitute,  and  that  this  was  the  lost  sheep.  On.  this 
account  he  himself  came,  that  he  might  first  of  all  reclaim 
her  and  free  her  from  her  chains,  and  then  give  salvation 
to  men  through  the  knowledge  of  himself.1  For  since  the 
angels  ruled  the  world  badly,  because  every  one  of  them 
desired  the  chief  place,  he  had  come  down  for  the  restora- 
tion of  all  things,  and  had  descended,  being  changed  in 
figure,  and  made  like  to  principalities  and  powers  and 
angels,2  so  that  he  appeared  among  men  as  a  man,  though 
he  was  not  a  man,  and  was  thought  to  have  suffered  in 
Judea,  though  he  did  not  suffer.  .  .  .  Furthermore  he 
said  that  the  prophets  uttered  their  prophecies  under  the 


1  Sioi  TTJJ  tSias  ^Tri-yvdxreus,  Hippol.  sen  (Hippolytus,  vol.  I.  p.  48)  supposes 
vi.  19  ;  'per  suam  agnitionem,'  Transl.  quite  arbitrarily,  that  Simon,  or  the 
Iren.     The  Greek  shows  clearly  the  person  writing  in  his  name,  is  here 
Gnostic  element.  giving  an  account,  not  of  himself,  but 

2  Hippol.  vi.  19  f^ofjLoiovfj.fvov  rats  of  Jesus.     Bunsen's   view  is  rejected 
apxcus  KCU  rats  e|ou0-fcuj  /cal  rots  ayye-  by    his    admirer    Milman,    Hist,    of 
A.OIS;  '  Transl.  Iren.  '  assimilatum  vir-  Christianity  II.  p.  51. 

tutibus  et  potentibus  et  angelis.'  Bun- 

G  2 


84  PRECURSORS  OF  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  vi. 

inspiration  of  those  angels  who  framed  the  world ;  for 
which  reason  they  who  rest  their  hope  on  him  and  his 
Helena  no  longer  cared  for  them,  but  as  free  men  could 
act  as  they  pleased,  for  that  men  are  saved  by  his  (i.e. 
Simon's)  grace,  and  not  according  to  their  own  just  works, 
for  that  no  acts  were  just  by  nature,  but  by  accident, 
according  to  the  rules  established  by  the  angels  who  made 
the  world,1  and  who  attempt  by  these  precepts  to  bring 
men  into  bondage.  For  this  reason  he  promised  that  the 
world  should  be  released  and  those  who  are  his  set  at  liberty 
from  the  government  of  those  who  made  the  world.'2  In 
another  passage  of  Irenseus  the  doctrine  of  Simon  is 
summed  up  more  briefly.  *  Simon  Magus,'  he  says,  e  was 
the  first  to  declare  that  he  himself  was  the  God  who 
is  over  all  things,  and  that  the  world  was  made  by  his 
angels.'3 

From  this  strange  medley  of  Christian,  Jewish,  and 
heathen  ideas,  we  may  without  much  difficulty  disen- 
gage the  leading  principles  of  Simon's  teaching.  In 
common  with  the  Alexandrian  Platonists  and  with  all 
the  subsequent  Gnostics,  he  distinguished  between  the 
Supreme  God  and  the  Creator  of  the  world,  and  adop- 
ting with  some  modifications  a  hint  furnished  by  the 
figurative  language  of  Plato's  Timseus,  he  considered  the 
material  world  to  be  the  work  of  subordinate  beings  who 
were  in  rebellion  against  the  higher  powers  emanating 
from  the  Supreme  God.  Combining  with  this  philosophy 
a  strange  perversion  of  the  Christian  doctrine  of  redemp- 
tion, he  seems  to  have  represented  himself  as  the  subse- 
quent receptacle  of  the  same  Divine  power  which  had 

1  ov   yap   fan  (pvffei   Kattbv    a\\u  JRef.    Hcer.    vi.    19;    Tertullian,    De 
Oeffei.     eOevro    yap,  Q-ricriv,  of  &yye\oi  Anima     c.    34  ;     Epiphanius,     Hcer. 
K.r.\.  Hippol.  vi.  19.  xxv.  4;  Theodoret,  Hcer,  Fab.  i.  1. 

2  Irenseus,  i.  23,  partly  translated  s  Irenseus,  ii.  9. 
by  Burton,  B.  L.  p.  390.     Cf.  Hippol. 


LECT.  vi.         SIMON  MAGUS  AND  MEN  AND  EE.  85 

previously  dwelt  in  Jesus,  and  in  his  person  had  appeared 
to  suffer  in  Judea.1  The  mention  of  our  Lord's  humanity 
and  suffering  as  apparent  but  not  real  seems  to  point  to 
Simon  as  the  first  teacher  of  the  Docetic  heresy ;  but  if 
this  interpretation  be  put  upon  his  language,  we  must 
suppose  that  in  consistency  he  maintained  his  own  body 
to  be  unreal  also ;  and  there  are  not  wanting  other  notices 
which  give  an  incidental  support  to  this  supposition.2 
Combined  with  these  philosophical  theories  we  find  that 
hostility  to  the  Jewish  law  and  scriptures  which  became 
afterwards  characteristic  of  a  large  school  of  Gnostics, 
and  those  licentious  doctrines  concerning  moral  distinc- 
tions which  afterwards  conferred  an  evil  notoriety  on 
Carpocrates  and  Epiphanes,  and  which  were  too  much  in 
accordance  with  the  practices  of  Simon  himself. 

In  the  wild  and  grotesque  theory  of  Simon  concerning 
the  nature  and  past  history  of  his  companion  Helena,  we 
may  trace  an  allusion  to  that  division  of  the  Divine 
emanations  into  pairs,  male  and  female,  which  we  find  in 
another  form  in  the  Jewish  Kabbala,  and  concerning  which 
we  find  some  further  details  in  other  notices  of  the  teach- 
ing of  Simon.  In  the  recently  discovered  work  of  Hippo- 
lytus  against  heresies  an  account  is  given  of  the  doctrine 
of  Simon  as  contained  in  a  work  called  the  'Great 
Announcement'  ('A7r6<£a<m  MeydXij'),  which  is  cited  as  the 
production  of  Simon  himself.3  According  to  this  work 
the  principle  of  all  things  is  a  certain  indefinite  power 
(aTrspavTos  Swapis)  which  is  spoken  of  under  the  name  of 

1  Cf.  Burton,   Hampton  Lectures  surdity  to  suppose  this  work  written 
pp.  117,  396.  by  the  Simon  Magus  of  the  Acts.    He 

2  See  the  strange  story  told  in  the  gives   however    no   reason    for    this 
Clementines,  Horn.  ii.  24,  of  the  staff  strong  assertion,   and  allows  that  it 
of  Dositheus  passing  through  Simon's  may  have  been  the  work  of  Dositheus 
body.  or  Menander.     Hippolytus  evidently 

3  Milman    (Hist,   of  Christianity  regarded    it  as  a   genuine  work    of 
II.  p.  50)  says  that  it  were  utter  ab-  Simon. 


PEECURSOIIS  OF  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  vi. 

Fire,  and  also  under  that  of  Silence.1     Under  the  name  of 
Fire  it  is  described  as  having  two  natures,  one  secret  and 
one   manifest,   the   secret   nature  being    hidden   in  the 
manifest,  and  the  manifest  produced  by  the  secret ;  the 
one   embraces   the  whole  intelligible  and  the  other  the 
whole  sensible  universe.     The  world  was  generated  from 
the  ungenerated  fire  by  means  of  six  roots  or  principles  of 
things,  which  are  produced  from  the  primitive  fire  in  pairs, 
called  vovf   and   lirlvoia,   (pcovrj   and   wopa,  XO^LO-JMOS   and 
svQvwffis.*    In  these  six  roots  is  potentially  contained  the 
whole  of  the  primary  indefinite  power,  which  power,  he 
says,  is  manifested  as  6  SVTMS,  crrds^  o-Tyo-opsvos.     By  this 
last  term  seems  obscurely  to  be  designated  the  Gnostic  or 
perfect  man  represented  by  Simon  himself,  who  is  re- 
garded as  the  consummation  or  perfect  fruit  of  this  pro- 
cess of  manifestation,  combining  in  himself  the  whole 
development  of  the  Divine  principle  and  identified  with 
it.3     The  six  partial  roots  or   emanations   of  the   same 
principle  have  each  its   material   counterpart,  vovs  and 
sTrivoia  answering  to  heaven  and  earth,  <j>covr)  and  ovo^a  to 
the  sun  and  moon,  \oyicrfjibs  and  sv6vfif)<ns  to  air  and  water.4 
Man,  that  is  to  say  the  perfect  man  or  Gnostic,  is  the 
counterpart  and  complete  manifestation  of  the  whole.     In 
a  subsequent  passage  Hippolytus  tells  us  that  the  roots 
(pt&t)  of  Simon's  system   correspond   under  a  different 
name  with  the  seons  (ai&vss)  of  his  successor  Yalentinus.5 
The  whole  theory  is  illustrated  by  an  allegorical  interpre- 
tation of  the  Mosaic  account  of  the  creation  worthy  of 
Philo  Judseus  himself.     Of  this  theory,  which  is  repeated 
in  an  abridged  form  by  Theodoret,6  the  more  abstract  and 

1  Hippol.  Eef.  Har.  vi.  9,  18.  3  Cf.  Holler  in  Herzog,  vol.  XIV. 

2  Hippol.  vi.  12.     The  same  three       396,  397. 

pairs  are  mentioned  by  Theodoret  Har.  *  Hippol.  vi.  13. 

Fab.  i.    1,   where  however  tvvoia.  is  5  Hippol.  vi.  20. 

substituted  for  ovojua.  6  H®r.  Fab.  i.  1. 


LECT.  vi.        SIMON  MAGUS  AND  MENANDER.  87 

metaphysical  portion  contains  much  which  we  have  already 
seen  partly  represented  in  the  Oriental  sources  of  Gnos- 
ticism. The  six  roots,  together  with  the  indefinite  power 
which  is  their  source,  remind  us  of  the  six  Amshaspands 
of  the  Persian  theosophy,  with  Ormuzd,  their  source,  as  a 
seventh.  The  perfect  man,  the  completion  of  all  the 
Divine  powers,  corresponds  to  some  extent  with  the  Adam 
Kadmon  of  the  Kabbala ;  and  the  relation  of  these  roots 
or  powers,  half  of  which  are  represented  as  female,  to  the 
indefinite  power  which  gave  rise  to  them  and  to  the 
perfect  man  who  is  the  image  of  that  power,  illustrates 
the  position  assigned  in  other  notices  to  Simon  as  the  so- 
called  representative  of  the  Father  of  all  things,  and  to 
Helena,  under  whose  form  is  concealed  the  first  Ennoia 
or  Conception  sprung  from  the  Father.  But  there  is 
another  singular  feature  of  this  mystic  rhapsody  which  we 
may  doubt  whether  to  refer  to  an  Oriental  or  to  a  Greek 
source,  and  that  is  the  concrete  and  physical  description 
of  the  primitive  power  under  the  name  of  fire.  Hippolytus 
notices  the  analogy  in  this  respect  between  Simon's  philo- 
sophy and  that  of  Heraclitus,1  and  it  is  quite  possible  that 
the  Samaritan  niagus  may  have  followed  the  philosopher 
of  Ephesus  in  introducing  a  theory  of  metaphysical 
pantheism  under  the  imagery  borrowed  from  the  pheno- 
mena exhibited  by  the  material  element.  But  we  may 
also  remember  that  the  Persian  religious  philosophy  con- 
trasts the  good  and  evil  principles  under  the  forms  of 
light  and  darkness,  and  that  its  disciples,  if  not  literally,  as 
they  are  commonly  called,  fire-worshippers,  at  least  re- 
garded fire  as  an  emblem  of  the  Divine  power.2  But 
whatever  may  be  the  origin  of  the  theory,  its  whole  tenor 
leads  to  the  conclusion  that  the  fire  of  which  it  speaks  is 

1  Hippolytus,  Ref.  Hcer.  vi.  9. 

2  Max  Miiller,  Chips  from  a  German  Workshop  I.  p.  169. 


88  PRECURSORS  OF  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  vi. 

not  to  be  understood  literally  but  figuratively,  as  the 
emblem  of  some  spiritual  force,  the  several  moments  of 
whose  development  are  supposed  to  explain  the  real 
nature  of  the  universe.  Thus  interpreted,  the  theory  bears 
a  strong  resemblance  to  that  scheme  of  logico-meta- 
physical  pantheism  which  formed  the  culminating  point 
of  the  German  spiritual  philosophy  of  the  last  generation,1 
and  which  has  been  strangely  enough  revived  in  connec- 
tion with  a  materialistic  hypothesis  by  a  recent  writer  in 
our  own  country;2  the  scheme  which  represents  the 
Divine  nature  in  the  form  of  a  universal  process  passing 
through  successive  stages  of  lower  development,  and 
finally  becoming  conscious  in  man. 

One  continuous  fragment  of  the  'A7r6<£a(m  MsydXvj  has 
been  preserved  by  Hippolytus,  in  which  the  above  theory 
is  exhibited  in  the  author's  own  language.  I  will  not 
say  that  a  literal  translation  will  make  the  above  expo- 
sition more  intelligible ;  but  in  this  respect  Simon  Magus 
(if  he  be  indeed  the  author  of  the  work)  only  shares  the 
fate  of  some  of  his  German  followers  in  recent  times. 
Simon,  we  are  told,  speaks  expressly  in  his  'Announce- 
ment '  as  follows :  '  Now  I  say  to  you  that  which  I  say, 
and  write  that  which  I  write.  The  scheme  is  this : 
There  are  two  offshoots  of  the  perfect  ages,3  having 
neither  beginning  nor  end,  from  one  root,  which  is  the 
invisible,  incomprehensible  Power,  Silence  ;  of  which  one 
is  manifested  from  above,  the  great  Power,  Intellect 
(vovs)  of  the  universe,  that  administers  all  things,  the 

1  In  reading  Holler's  German  ex-  used  in  the  same  sense  in  which  God 

position  of  the  theory,  we  might  almost  is    called     6    fiao-iXevs    raw    auavcov, 

fancy,  were  the  Greek  citations  omitted,  1    Tim.  i.  17  (cf.  6  0ebs  TU>V  aluvwf, 

that  we  were  reading  an  extract  from  Ecclus.   xxxvi.    17),    meaning  alwves 

Hegel.  TcDf  alwvttiv,  the  aggregate  of  the  ages, 

2  Bray,  On  Force  p.  75..  or  eternity.   Cf.  Ellicott  and  Alford  on 

3  rSiv  '6\<av  alwvwv,  i.e.  probably  of  1  Tim.  i,  1 7.     See  also  Burton,  B.  L. 

eternity.     The  term  cu'w^es  seems  to  be  p.  110. 


LECT.  vi.         SIMON  MAGUS  AND  MENANDER.  89 

Male  Principle  ;  and  the  other  from  beneath,  vast  Thought 
(sTrtvoia),  generative  of  all  things,  the  Female  Principle; 
whence  in  mutual  correspondence  (avrto-Tot^ovvrss)  they 
combine  in  consort,  and  exhibit  the  mean  space  as  an 
immense  atmosphere,  having  neither  beginning  nor  end. 
But  within  it  is  the  Father  that  upholds  and  sustains  all 
things  that  have  beginning  and  end.  This  is  he  who 
standeth,  who  stood,  who  will  stand  (o  l0Ta>y,  (TTCLS,  a-rrjcro- 
IJLcvos],  being  a  bisexual  power  (apasvoOrjXvs  Swapis),  the 
reflex  of  the  pre-existent  indefinite  power,  still  subsisting 
in  solitude,  which  hath  neither  beginning  nor  end  ;  for 
from  him,  Thought  subsisting  in  solitude,  emanating, 
made  two.  Yet  he  was  one,  for  having  her  within  him- 
self, he  was  alone,  not  in  truth  first,  howbeit  pre-existent, 
but  himself,  manifested  from  himself,  became  second. 
But  neither  was  he  called  Father,  before  his  Thought  so 
named  him.  As  therefore  evolving  himself  from  himself 
he  revealed  to  himself  his  own  Thought,  so  also  the 
revealed  Thought  acted  not  [otherwise],1  but  seeing  him, 
she  hid  within  herself  the  Father,  which  is  the  power  ; 
and  thus  Thought  also  is  a  bisexual  power  ;  so  that  in  this 
way  they  mutually  correspond  (for  Power  differs  in  no 
respect  from  Thought),  being  one.  Power  is  found  to  be 
from  above,  Thought  from  beneath.  It  is  thus  that  the 
manifestation  also  emanating  from  them,  being  one,  is 
found  to  be  two,  a  bisexual,  having  the  female  within 
itself.  He  is  Intellect  in  Thought,  and  these  being 
separated  from  each  other,2  being  one,  are  found  to  be 
two.'3 

If  we  adhere  to  the  distinction  pointed  out  in  a  pre- 


v.  Harvey  conjectures  by  Harvey,   '  Being  one  inseparably 

eiroti)(TGv  &\X(as.  from  eaqji  other.' 

2  &  xa>Pto'T^  BIT'  aAA^Awy,  the  read-  3  Hippol.  Eef.  H&r.  vi.  18.      The 

ing   of   Duncker    and     Schneidewin.  translation    is     chiefly    taken     from 

Miller's  text  reads  axwpio-ra,  rendered  Harvey,  Irenaus  Introd.  p.  Ixvii. 


90  PRECURSORS  OF  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  vi. 

vicms  lecture  between  heresy  properly   so  called  and   a 
merely  unchristian  or  antichristian  philosophy,1  it  is  not 
easy  to  assign  to  the  system  of  Simon  (and  the  same  may 
be  said  of  that  of  his  successor  Menander)  a  definite  posi- 
tion in  the  one  class  or  the  other.     On  the  one  hand,  the 
conception  of  a  redemption,  of  a  Divine  interposition  to 
deliver  the  world  from  the  dominion  of  evil,  a  conception 
common  to  Christianity  and  to  the  later  forms  of  Gnos- 
ticism, and  which  distinguished  both  from  heathen  sys- 
tems of  philosophy,  is  also  present,  though  in  a  grossly 
perverted  form,  in  the  teaching  of  Simon.      The  material 
world  is  the  work  of,  and  is  under  the  dominion  of,  re- 
bellious powers ;  a  divine  power  descends  from  above,  in  a 
seemingly  human  form,  to  effect  its  deliverance.      But  on 
the  other  hand,  this  doctrine  differs  widely  even  from  the 
most  depraved  of  the  later  Gnostic  systems,  in  that  the 
heaven-sent   deliverer  is  not  Jesus,  but  Simon  himself. 
There  is  no  recognition  of  the  person  and  work  of  Jesus 
Christ  as  the  Redeemer,  save  in  so  far  as  an  inferior  and 
imperfect  mission  is  ascribed  to  Him,  subordinate  to  that 
claimed  by  Simon  for  himself.    Were  it  not  that  the  office 
of  Christ,  however  degraded  and  distorted,  is  still  that  of 
a  Eedeemer,  and  not  merely  of  a  teacher,  we  should  be 
disposed  to  say  that  the  relation  of  Simon's  teaching  to 
that   of  Christianity  more  nearly  resembles  that   after- 
wards assumed  by  Mahommedanism  than  that  of  any  sect 
pretending  to  the  name  of  Christian.     Simon  however  is  a 
false  Christ;   not  merely  a  false  prophet.     If  we  admit 
his  system  to  a  place  among  the  Gnostic  heresies,  it  is  not 
because  it  has  any  pretension  to  the  name  even  of  a  here- 
tical Christianity ;  but  partly  because  it  borrows,  while  it 
perverts,  the  Christian  idea  of  Redemption,  which  the  later 
Gnostics  also  adopted  in  a  less  perverted  form,  and  partly 

J  See  above,  Lecture  I. 


LECT.  vi.        SIMON  MAGUS  AND  MENANDER.  91 

because  the  heathen  ideas  upon  which  its  metaphysical 
speculations  are  based  were  transmitted  by  it  to  the  later 
systems,  and  constitute  an  historical  as  well  as  a  philoso- 
phical link  of  connection  between  them.1 

The  personal  history  of  Simon  Magus,  after  he  dis- 
appears from  the  narrative  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
has  assumed  various  traditional  forms,  all  of  these  having 
more  or  less  of  a  legendary  character,  though  possibly 
with  some  fragment  of  real  history  imbedded  in  them. 
Hegesippus,  the  earliest  ecclesiastical  writer  by  whom  his 
name  is  mentioned,  speaks  of  him  merely  as  one  of  the 
heretics  proceeding  from  the  Jewish  sects,  among  whom 
he  reckons  the  Samaritans.2  As  we  proceed  to  later 
writers,  the  notices  of  Simon  become  more  definite.  His 
countryman,  Justin  Martyr,  tells  us  that  he  came  to 
Rome  during  the  reign  of  Claudius,  and  obtained  such  a 
reputation  by  his  magical  powers  that  he  was  believed  to 
be  a  god,  and  had  a  statue  raised  to  him  on  the  river 
Tiber,  between  the  two  bridges,  with  a  Latin  inscription, 
Simoni  Deo  Sancto.  He  adds  that  Simon  is  still  honoured 
by  nearly  all  the  Samaritans  as  the  first  God,  and  his 
companion  Helena  as  his  first  Conception.3  The  story  of 
the  statue,  which  is  repeated  by  Irenseus,  Tertullian,  and 

others,4  has  been  much  discredited  in  modern  times  by  the 

• 

1  Mosheim  (De  Rebus  Christ,  ante  nature  of  heresy.     The  view  adopted 

Const.     §  65)     altogether    excludes  in  the  text  is  intermediate  between 

Simon  from  the  list  of  Gnostic  here-  these  opposite  judgments, 
tics  as  being  an  open  enemy  of  Chris-  2  Hegesippus  in  Eusebius,  H.  E. 

tianity.     He  is  followed  by  Neander  iv.  22. 

(Church  History  II.  p.  123)  and  by  3  Justin    Martyr,  Apol.    i.  c.   27 

Dorner    (Person  of    Christ    vol.    I.  (cf.  c,  56),  and  Euseb.  H.  E.  ii.  13. 
p.  186,  and  note  u).     Bunsen  on  the  4  Cf.  Burton,  B.  L.  p.  374.     He 

other  hand  (Hippolytus,  vol.  I.  p.  54),  cites     Irenseus,    i.     23  ;     Tertullian, 

recognises     Simon    as     a     heretical  Apol.  13 ;   Theodoret,   Hcer.   Fab.    i. 

Christian,  but  on  an  erroneous  inter-  1  ;    Cyril.   Hieros.    Cateches.   vi.  14  ; 

pretation  of  his  doctrine ;  and  Burton  Augustin.    De    Hcer.     1,   vol.   VIII. 

(S.  L.  pp.  87-90,  and  note  38)  admits  p.  6. 
him  by  taking  a  wider  view  of  the 


92  PRECURSORS  OF  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  vi. 

discovery  in  the  year  1574,  on  the  island  in  the  Tiber,  of  a 
fragment  of  marble  bearing  an  inscription  commencing 
Semoni  Sanco  Deo  Fidio  Sacrum.1  Hence  the  majority  of 
modern  critics  have  supposed  that  Justin  mistook  an  in- 
scription to  the  Sabine  deity,  Semo  Sancus,  for  one  to 
Simon  the  holy  God.2  Justin's  account  has  nevertheless 
found  many  learned  defenders,  but  it  is,  to  say  the  least, 
liable  to  suspicion  from  the  fact  that  Hippolytus,  who 
lived  in  the  immediate  neighbourhood  of  Borne,  who  was 
a  suffragan  bishop  of  the  Koman  Church,  who  was  well 
acquainted  with  the  treatise  of  Irenseus,  and  has  copied 
word  for  word  a  considerable  portion  of  his  account  of 
Simon,  makes  no  mention  of  this  statue.3  A  still  stranger 
story,  and  of  later  origin,  is  the  popular  tradition  con- 
cerning the  manner  of  Simon's  death.  It  is  said  that 
while  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  were  at  Eome,  Simon,  in 
order  to  delude  the  people  into  a  belief  in  his  pretensions, 
caused  himself  to  be  raised  into  the  air  by  two  demons  in 
a  chariot  of  fire,  but  that  the  two  Apostles  having  united 
in  prayer  against  him,  the  impostor  was  deserted  by  his 
demons,  and  fell  to  the  ground,  breaking  both  his  legs  by 
the  fall,  after  which  he  destroyed  himself  through  shame 
and  vexation,  by  throwing  himself  from  the  top  of  a 
house.4  The  earliest  writer  in  whom,  we  can  trace  any 
allusion  to  this  story  is  Arnobius,  in  the  beginning  of  the 
fourth  century;  and  Eusebius,  who  wrote  some  }~ears 
afterwards,  evidently  knows  nothing  of  it.5  It  was  known 
to  Greek  writers  by  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century,  as  it 

1  Cf.  Burton,  B.  L.  p.  375.     The      pp.  377,  378. 

full  inscription  is  SEMONI  SANCO  DEO  3  Cf.  Bunsen,  Hippolytus  vol.  I. 

FIDIO  SACRUM  SEX.  POMPEIUS  SP.  F.  p.  52. 

COL.  MUSSIANUS  QUINQUENNALIS  DE-  4  Cf.  Burton,  B.  L.  pp.  94,  371. 

CUR.  BIDENTAIIS  DONUM  DEBIT.  5  Cf.  Arnobius,  Adv.   Gent.  ii.  12, 

2  For  the  names  of  modern  writers,  compared  with  Euseb.  H.  E.  ii.   13; 
who  deny  or    defend  the    truth  of  and  see  Burton,  B.  L.  p.  95. 
Justin's  story,    see    Burton,    B.    L. 


LECT.  vi.        SIMON  MAGUS  AND  MENANDER.  93 

appears  with,  full  particulars  in  the  e  Catecheses  '  of  Cyril 
of  Jerusalem,  and  in  the  so-called  ( Apostolical  Constitu- 
tions/ which  may  have  been  compiled  about  the  same 
time  or  a  little  earlier.1  Here  again  the  recently  re- 
covered treatise  of  Hippolytus,  who  wrote  nearly  a  century 
earlier  than  Arnobius,  refutes  the  marvellous  tradition  by 
giving  another  and  wholly  different  account  of  Simon's 
death.  '  He  announced,'  says  Hippolytus,  '  that  if  he 
were  buried  alive,  he  would  rise  again  on  the  third  day. 
And  accordingly,  having  ordered  a  trench  to  be  dug  by 
his  disciples,  he  gave  directions  that  he  should  be  buried 
therein.  They  then  did  as  they  were  commanded,  but  he 
remained  away  from  them  unto  this  day :  for  he  was  not 
the  Christ.' 2 

This  story  may  perhaps  agree  with  the  later  tradition 
in  attributing  the  death  of  Simon  to  the  failure  of  some 
trick  which  he  had  contrived  to  support  his  credit ;  but  in 
the  actual  circumstances  recorded  it  is  wholly  different, 
and  certainly  far  more  probable.3  Other  marvellous  nar- 
ratives of  Simon  are  told  in  the  pseudonymous  works 
known  as  the  Clementine  Homilies  and  Recognitions — 
works  themselves  of  a  Gnostic  character,  though  entirely 
opposed  to  the  teaching  of  Simon.  Of  these  we  shall 
give  an  account  in  a  future  lecture. 

The  doctrine  of  Menander,  the  disciple  and  immediate 
successor  of  Simon,  was  of  the  same  antichristian  charac- 
ter, his  own  name  however  being  substituted  for  that  of 
his  master.  Menander,  like  Simon,  was  a  Samaritan  by 


1     Cyril.    Hieros.    Catech.    vi.   15 ;  others  as  (Ussher  and  Tillemont)  as 

Const.  Apost.  vi.    9.     Burton  (B.  L.  late    as   the    sixth.      See   Jacobson's 

p.  371)  regards  the  Constitutions  as  Article,    'Apost.   Constitutionen '   in 

a  work  of  the  fourth  century.     Mansi  Herzog,  I.  p.  449. 

(Condi.  I.  p.  256)  places  them  between  2  Hippol.  Eef.  Hcer.  vi.  20. 

309   and  325.      Some    critics    place  3  Cf.     Harvey,    Irenceus    Introd. 

them  at  the  end  of  the  third  century,  p.  Ixix. 


94  PRECURSORS   OF  GNOSTICISM.  LECT.  vi. 

birth,1  and  is  said  even  to  have  surpassed  his  master  in 
magical  prodigies.2  He  maintained,  like  Simon,  that  the 
world  was  made  by  angels,  the  offspring  of  the  Ennoia  or 
Conception,  and  that  he  himself  was  sent  from  the  unseen 
supreme  power,  to  deliver  men  from  their  dominion  by 
means  of  the  magic  which  he  taught.  He  is  also  said  to 
have  instituted  a  form  of  baptism  in  his  own  name,  which 
he  called  the  resurrection,  and  to  have  asserted  that  those 
who  received  it  would  be  exempt  from  old  age  and  death.3 
A  promise  of  this  kind,  if  it  was  ever  made,  would  admit 
of  being  very  soon  tested  by  facts,  and  accordingly  the 
sect  of  the  Menandrians  seems  to  have  soon  become  ex- 
tinct, while  the  followers  of  Simon,  though  with  dimi- 
nished numbers,  lingered  on  to  the  sixth  century.4  The 
anti Christian  sects  founded  by  Simon  and  Menander  may 
be  regarded  as  precursors  of  Gnosticism  properly  so  called. 
Of  some  of  the  early  forms  of  the  latter  heresy  I  shall 
give  an  account  in  my  next  lecture. 

1  Irenaeus,   i.   23  ;    Justin   Mart.  8    Irenseus,  i.  23.    Cf.  Justin  Mart. 
ApoL  i.  c.  26.  Apol.  i.  c.  26. 

2  /j.ft£o(riv     €TTidafyi\fv€Tai    rcparo-  *  Herzog's      Encyklopadie,      Art. 
\oyicus,   Euseb.  iii.  26.     Epiphanius,  'Menander.'    Origen   (c.   Cels.   i.   57) 
H<er.   xxii.    1,    says  that    Menander  doubts  whether  there  were  in  his  time 
gave  himself  out  as  a  greater  person  as  many  as  thirty  Simonians  in  the 
than  Simon.  world. 


LECT,  vn.  T.HE  OPHITE  SECTS.  95 


LECTURE  YIL 

THE    OPHITE   SECTS. 

IN  regarding  Simon  Magus  as  the  earliest  teacher  of 
Gnostic  principles,  we  follow  the  almost  unanimous  testi- 
mony of  those  Fathers  who  have  spoken  on  the  subject,  as 
well  as  the  probable  chronology  suggested  by  the  early 
mention  of  him  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  As  the  first 
meeting  between  him  and  St.  Peter  must  be  placed,  at  the 
latest,  not  more  than  seven  years  after  our  Lord's  ascen- 
sion, it  is  scarcely  possible  that  any  heretical  system  can 
have  arisen  at  an  earlier  date  under  any  Christian  in- 
fluence. Yet  though  the  foundation  of  Simon's  teaching 
was  laid  thus  early,  it  is  probable  that  his  complete  system 
may  have  been  matured  several  years  later,  and  that  other 
heretical  sects  may  have  come  into  notice  contemporary 
with,  or  in  some  respects  earlier  than  his  doctrine  in  its 
complete  development.  This  supposition  may  perhaps 
serve  to  explain  the  circumstance  that  Hippolytus,  who 
professes  to  treat  of  the  several  heresies  in  the  order  of 
their  appearance,  commences  his  account  with  certain  sects 
which  he  places  before  Simon  Magus  and  seems  to  con- 
sider as  the  earliest  Gnostics.1  It  is  also  probable  that 
some  of  these  sects  may  have  been  of  Jewish  or  heathen 
origin,  and  may  have  engrafted  some  ideas  borrowed  from 

1  Cf.  Bunsen,  Hippolytus  I.  p.  39.      given  by    Hippolytus,    belong  to  a 
Yet  it  is  quite  certain  that  many  of      later  date, 
the  details  of  the  Ophite  teaching,  as 


96  THE  OPHITE  SECTS.  LECT.  TII. 

Christianity  on  tenets  existing  from  an  earlier  date,  and 
this  may  perhaps  account  for  the  apparently  conflicting 
statements  which  have  been  made  concerning  their  chrono- 
logical position,  some  writers  considering  them  even  earlier 
than  Christianity,  while  others  postpone  them  to  the 
beginning  of  the  second  century.1 

These  sects,  to  take  them  in  the  order  in  which  they 
are  mentioned  by  Hippolytus,  are  the  Naasseni,  the  Peratse, 
the  Sethiani,  and  the  followers  of  one  Justin,  who  of 
course  must  not  be  confounded  with  the  Christian  apolo- 
gist and  martyr  of  the  same  name  in  the  second  century. 
The  first  of  these  sects,  he  says,  compiled  their  heresies 
from  principles  borrowed  from  the  Greek  philosophers  and 
the  teachers  of  the  mysteries  ;  the^econd  from  astrology; 
the  third  from  Musseus,  Linus,  and  Orpheus;  and  the 
fourth  from  the  marvels  narrated  by  Herodotus.2  All  of 
these  however  must  be  regarded  as  branches  of  the 
Ophite  heresy,  the  serpent  being  a  principal  figure  with 
all. 

The  Naassenes  derived  their  name  from  the  Hebrew 
word  Naash  (K>m)  which  signifies  a  serpent  ;  afterwards  they 
assumed  the  name  of  Gnostics,  professing  that  they  alone 
had  knowledge  of  the  depths.3  The  veneration  of  the 
serpent,  from  which  their  appellation  as  well  as  that  of 
the  Ophite  generally  is  derived,  was  but  the  logical  deve- 
lopment of  a  theory,  the  germ  of  which  is  common  to  many 
of  the  Gnostic  sects.  Proceeding  on  the  assumption  that 
the  Creator  of  the  world  is  to  be  regarded  as  an  evil 
power,  acting  in  hostility  to  the  supreme  God,  it  follows, 
as  a  natural  consequence,  that  the  fall  of  man  through 


1  Of.    Neander,    Church    History  ffKeiv,  Hippol.  v.  6.   May  not  this  con- 
II.  p.  112;  Baur,  Christliche  Gnosis  junction  of  the  serpent  and  the  depths 
p.  196.  be  referred  to  by  St.  John,  Bey.  ii.  24 

2  Hippol.  v.  2-5.  o'lTives    OVK    tyvwffav    ra    fidQea    TOV 


LECT.  vn.  THE  OPHITE  SECTS.  97 

disobedience  to  the  command  of  his  Maker  must  be  re- 
garded, not  as  a  transgression  against  the  will  of  the 
Supreme  God,  but  as  an  emancipation  from  the  authority 
of  an  evil  being.  The  serpent  therefore,  who  tempted 
mankind  to  sin,  is  no  longer  their  destroyer  but  their 
benefactor;  he  is  the  symbol  of  intellect,1  by  whose  means 
the  first  human  pair  were  raised  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
existence  of  higher  beings  than  their  Creator.  This  con- 
ception, consistently  carried  out,  would  have  resulted  in  a 
direct  inversion  of  the  whole  teaching  of  Scripture  ;  in 
calling  evil  good,  and  good  evil ;  in  converting  Satan  into 
God,  and  God  into  Satan.  The  majority  of  the  Ophite 
sects  however  seem  to  have  shrunk  from  this  portentous 
blasphemy ;  while  acknowledging  the  fall  of  man  as  in 
some  manner  a  djeliverance  from  evil  and  an  exaltation  of 
human  nature,  they  hesitated  to  carry  out  their  principle 
by  investing  the  evil  spirit  with  the  attributes  of  deity. 
A  kind  of  compromise  was  made  between  Scripture  and 
philosophy  ;  the  serpent  was,  notwithstanding  his  service 
to  mankind,  represented  as  a  being  of  evil  nature  and  an 
enemy  to  man,  though  his  work  was  overruled  to  man's 
good,  and  he  himself  was,  beyond  his  intention,  the  instru- 
ment of  a  higher  wisdom.  But  in  one  sect  at  least  of 
the  Ophites,  the  more  logical  and  thoroughly  blasphe- 
mous consequences  of  their  first  principles  were  exhibited, 
as  we  shall  see,  openly  and  unblushingly. 

The  assumption,  which  appears  to  have  been  common 
to  all  the  Ophite  sects,  was  the  representation  of  the 
highest  principle  of  all  things  as  a  Spiritual  Man,  an- 
swering to  the  Adam  Kadmon  of  the  Jewish  Kabbala.2 

1  'Nun   in  figura   serpentis  con-  the  second  principle  may  thus  have 
tortum  ; '  Irenaeus,  i.  30.  5.  been  introduced  to  form  a  pair  with 

2  Irenaeus,  i.  30.  1  ;  Hippol.  v.  6.  the  third.     This  seems  to  have  been 
The  first  principle,  according  to  Hip-  overlooked  by  Irenaeus. 

polytus,  is  bisexual  (apffev6dii\vs'),  and 


98  THE  OPHITE  SECTS.  LECT.  vn. 

With  Mm  is  associated  a  second  principle,  called  the 
Son,  also  known  by  the  name  of  "Ewota,  which  however 
does  not,  as  in  the  teaching  of  Simon,  denote  a  feminine 
principle,  but  a  second  spiritual  man.  The  feminine 
principle  occupies  the  third  place,  and,  if  we  may  accept 
the  account  of  Irenseus,  was  known  as  the  Spirit  ;  and 
below  and  distinct  from  these  principles  existed  a  chaos 
of  material  elements.  It  is  impossible  to  overlook  in 
this  representation  a  profane  parody  of  the  Christian 
doctrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity;  and,  offensive  as  are  some  of 
the  details  of  the  theory,  it  is  a,t  least  valuable  as  testifying 
to  the  primitive  existence  of  that  article  of  the  Catholic 
faith  from  which  it  is  borrowed.  The  theory  then  proceeds 
to  declare  how  the  union  of  these  spiritual  principles  gave 
rise  to  a  fourth  spiritual  being,  whom  they  called  Christ, 
and  indirectly  a  feminine  principle  called  Sophia  or 
Prunikos,1  who  forms  an  intermediate  link  between  the- 
spiritual  Pleroma  of  Divine  beings  and  the  material 
world  with  its  Creator.  .  Sophia  is  represented  as  sinking 
down  to  the  material  chaos,  and  giving  birth  to  a  son 
called  laldabaoth,2  who  in  his  turn  becomes  the  parent  of 
six  successive  generations  of  angels,  himself  being  the 
seventh,  and  forming  in  conjunction  with  Sophia  an 
ogdoad.  laldabaoth  and  his  angels  are  the  artificers  of  the 
material  world  and  the  rulers  of  the  seven  planets. 

The  above  account,  which  is  abridged  from  Irenaeus, 
seems  to  represent  the  general  principles  which,  with 
some  slight  differences  of  detail,  were  common  to  the 
various  Ophite  sects.  But  at  this  point,  at  which  the 


Acryyeias  inroQatvei.  rb  Herzog,    Art.    'Ophiten,'     interprets 

Epiphanius,  Hcer.  xxv.  4;  it   as    fi-lrQ  W^h*   ('son  of  Chaos'). 

cf.  Petavius  on  this  place.     For  other  Haryey  (IreM^\  p.  230)  suggests 

explanations  'cf.  Harvey,  Irenaus  I.  ^^-l^-,^  .  Dornimis  Deus  pa_ 

2  This  name   has  been  variously  trum< 
interpreted  by  conjecture.      Gass,  in 


LECT.  vii.  THE  OPHITE  SECTS.  99 

serpent,  the  principal  figure  in  their  systems,  is  intro- 
duced, the  different  theories  branch  off  into  the  most 
curious  and  discordant  forms  of  representation.  According 
to  one  statement,  the  serpent  is  the  offspring  of  lalda- 
baoth  the  Demiurge,  in  conjunction  with  the  dregs  of 
matter,  and  is  employed  by  Sophia  Prunikos  to  tempt 
Adam  and  Eve  to  transgress  the  command  of  the  Demi- 
urge, the  latter  having  designed  by  means  of  Eve  to 
deprive  Adam  of  the  breath  of  life,  or  spiritual  intelligence 
and  thought,  which  he  had  unwittingly  conferred  upon 
him.  For  thus  thwarting  his  father's  designs,  the  serpent 
is  cast  out  from  heaven,  together  with  Adam  and  Eve  (the 
Ophite  Paradise  seems  to  have  been  placed  in  the  celestial 
regions) ;  and  from  henceforth  the  serpent  and  his  offspring 
became  the  enemies  of  mankind  in  revenge  for  the  expul- 
sion which  they  had  suffered  on  their  account.1  Another 
version  of  the  legend  makes  the  serpent  to  be  identical 
with  Sophia  herself,  and  to  have  bestowed  knowledge  upon 
man  out  of  hostility  to  the  Demiurge.2 

Another  division  of  this  school  seems  to  have  identified 
the  serpent  with  the  Word  or  Divine  Son,  and  made  him, 
like  Philo's  Logos,  the  intermediate  link  between  the 
Supreme  God  and  matter.3  They  also,  perverting  our 
Lord's  language  to  Mcodemus,  identified  him  with  the 
brazen  serpent  in  the  wilderness,  with  the  rod  of  Moses 
which  became  a  serpent,  and  with  the  constellation  Draco 
in  the  heavens.  Another  sect  seems  to  have  identified  the 
serpent,  first  with  the  winds,  on  account  of  its  hissing 
sound ;  and  then,  playing  upon  the  language  of  Scripture, 
with  the  creative  spirit  moving  on  the  face  of  the  waters ; 

1  Irenseus,  i.  30.  8.  the  worshippers  of  the  serpent. 

2  Irenseus,   i.  30.   15.     According  8  These  were  the  Peratse  of  Hip- 
to  Neander  (Ch.  Hist.  II.  p.  110)  this       polytus,  v.  16,  17. 

portion  of  the  sect  are  Ophites  proper, 

H  2 


100  THE  OPHITE  SECTS.  LECT.  vn. 

and  finally,  with  the  Divine  Word,  who  assumed  the  form 
of  the  Serpent-Creator  to  deliver  the  intellectual  man  from 
his  original  bondage.1  Another  sect,2  apparently  repre- 
senting in  a  mythical  form  the  Persian  doctrine  of  two 
principles,  placed  the  serpent  among  the  original  ungene- 
rated  causes  of  the  universe,  as  part  of  a  compound  being, 
half  woman  and  half  snake,  from  the  human  portion  of 
which  proceeded  certain  good  angels  and  mankind,  and 
from  the  serpentine  portion  evil  angels  and  the  brute 
creation.  One  of  these  evil  angels  again  inherits  the 
serpent  nature,  and  is  identified  with  the  tree  of  knowledge 
and  connected  with  the  introduction  of  evil  into  the  earth. 
The  boldest  and  most  consistent  of  the  Ophite  sects,  in 
the  development  of  their  blasphemous  principle  to  its 
legitimate  consequences,  were  the  Cainites.  This  sect,  if 
we  may  trust  the  accounts  which  have  come  down  to  us 
concerning  them,  carried  out  to  its  minutest  details  the 
monstrous  assumption  that,  the  God  of  the  Old  Testament 
being  an  evil  being,  all  that  is  condemned  in  that  book  is 
to  be  regarded  as  good,  and  all  that  is  approved  as  evil.3 
Those  characters  who  in  Scripture  are  expressly  held  up  to 
reprobation  as  examples  of  rebellion  and  disobedience  to 
God — Cain  as  the  leader,  the  men  of  Sodom,  Esau,  Korah — 
were  proclaimed  by  this  sect  as  their  heroes  and  kindred. 
Cain  and  Abel  were  the  offspring  of  antagonistic  spiritual 

1  This  seems    to   have  been  the  Gnosis  p.  198  seq.  Lardner  (Hist,  of 
view   of  the  Sethians,  according  to  Heretics,  bk.  ii.'  ch.  xiv.)  doubts  alto- 
Hippolytus,  v.  19.  gether  the  existence  of  the  Cainites,  and 

2  The    followers     of    Justin    the  supposes  the  notion  of  their  having  ex- 
Gnostic  ;  see  Hippolytus,  v.  26.     The  isted  to  have  arisen  from  the  Sethites 
female  monster  of  this  legend  is  con-  speaking  of  others  metaphorically  as 
sidered  by  Hippolytus  to  have  been  children  of  Cain,  as  does  St.  Jude.  But 
borrowed    from    the    fable    told  by  Lardner  does  not  see  the  so-called  phi- 
Herodotus,  iv.  9.  losophical  principle  of  which  the  Cainite 

3  Epiphan.  Hcer.  xxxviii.  2  8i8dff-  heresy  is  the  legitimate  development, 
Kovffi     8e  ravra  Kal  TO    roiavra,  rovs  and    therefore    sets    aside    the    testi- 

Kal   rovs    ayaOovs       monies   on   the   subject   on   a  priori 
Cf.   Baur,   Die  Ckr.       grounds  of  incredibility. 


LECT.  vii.  THE  OPHITE  SECTS.  101 

powers;  Cain  of  the  stronger  and  better,  Abel  of  the  weaker 
and  worse.    Cain  and  his  successors  were  the  true  martyrs, 
whom  the  ruler  of  this  world  persecuted,  but  could  not 
finally  hurt,  for  the  higher  wisdom  took  them  to  herself.1 
In  consistency  with  the  same  teaching,  their  favourite 
character  in  the  New  Testament  was  Judas  Iscariot.     He 
alone  of  the  Apostles  had  the  knowledge  to  perceive  the 
true  character  of  Christ's  mission  to  complete  by  His  death 
the  overthrow  of  the  God  of  the  Jews  and  the  victory  of 
the  superior  power,  and  therefore  he  betrayed  the  Saviour 
to  His  death,  that  this  good  work  might  be  the  more 
speedily  accomplished.     They  went  so  far  as  to  compile  a 
sacred   book   for   their   own   use,  which   they  called   the 
Gospel  of  Judas — a  work  which  is  happily  lost,  but  whose 
character  may  be  imagined  from  the  tenets  of  its  authors. 
Their  moral  practice,  unless  they  are  greatly  belied,  was 
precisely  what  might  be  expected  from  their  theory.2 

The  Sethites,  or  Sethiani,  one  of  the  sects  of  which  I 
have  already  spoken  as  mentioned  by  Hippolytus,  were  the 
antagonists  of  the  Cainites  thus  far,  that  they  acknowledged 
the  ordinary  principles  of  morality,  and  selected  Seth 
instead  of  Cain  as  their  example  of  the  higher  human 
nature.  But,  as  Ophites,  they  agreed  with  their  anta- 
gonists in  a  common  hostility  to  the  Creator  of  the  world. 
Seth,  and  the  spiritual  men  of  whom  he  is  the  leader, 
were  inspired  by  the  Sophia,  as  her  instrument,  to  coun- 
teract the  work  of  the  Demiurge.  The  same  wisdom 
sought  to  destroy  the  evil  race  of  mankind  through  the 
deluge,  and  to  preserve  Noah  as  the  father  of  a  spiritual 
race ;  but  her  efforts  were  thwarted  by  the  powers  of  the 
world,  who  introduced  Ham  into  the  ark,  and  thus  con- 
tinued the  evil  along  with  the  good.3  The  contest  between 

1  Irenseus,  i.  31 ;  Epiphan.  Hcsr.  2  Irenaeus,  1.  c. ;  Epiphanius,  I.  c. 

xxxviii.  1.  8  Epiphan.  Hcsr.  xxxix.  2,  3. 


102  THE  OPHITE  SECTS.  LECT.  vn. 

the  powers  of  good  and  evil  thus  continued  till  the  coming 
of  Christ,  who,  according  to  these  heretics,  is  no  other  than 
Seth  himself,  sent  again  upon  the  earth  by  Sophia  for  the 
completion  of  her  work. 

Of  the  other  two  Ophite  sects  mentioned  by  Hippo- 
lytus,  the  Peratse  have  been  already  alluded  to  as  those 
who  identified  the  serpent  with  the  Divine  Word.      They 
are   described  as  the  followers  of  a  certain  Euphrates, 
called  o  Hspanicos,  by  which  is  probably  meant  a  Chal- 
dean,1 and  Celbes  a  Carystian,  probably  from  Carystus  in 
Euboaa.      Hippolytus  gives  many  details  of  their  astro- 
logical theories,  all  of  which  seem  to  point  to  Chaldsea, 
the  great  seat  of  astrology,  as  the  source,  if  not  of  the 
original   doctrine,   at   least  of  many  of  the   subsequent 
accretions  which   distinguish   this  heresy.       Justin   the 
Gnostic,  of  whom  nothing  was  known  before  the  discovery 
of  the  work  of  Hippolytus,  seems  to  have  been  an  early 
teacher  of  the  Ophite  doctrines,  who  wrote  a  work  called 
the  Book  of  Baruch  for  the  use  of  his  disciples — Baruch 
being  the  name  of  one  of  the  twelve  good  angels  who 
form  an  important  feature  in  his  system.      From  internal 
evidence  we  may  probably  conjecture  that  this  book  was 
written  subsequently  to  the  Gospel  of  St.  John,2  though  it 
is  probably  an  early,  work  of  the  second  century.      In  it 
the  Ophite  principles  are  mixed  up  with  a  wild  legend 
from  the  Greek  mythology,  and  with  a  strange  allegorical 
interpretation  of  the  early  part  of  Genesis.      In  common 
with    Cerinthus,    with  whom   he    was    probably   nearly 

1  The  most    probable  derivation  cisme  I.  p.  257. 

seems  to  be  from  fpQ    the  Hebrew  2  The  words  which  are  attributed 

name  of  Euphrates,  which  makes  it  to  Jesus  ™  the  cross,  rfo<u,   awx«s 

doubtful  whether  the  so-called  founder  ffov  T*>v  v!6v  (Hippol.v.  26,  p.  228,  41) 

Euphrates  is  not  a  mythical  person-  8eem  to  be  a  perversion  of  John  xix. 

age.      Cf.      Harvey's      Irenceus     I.  26. 
p.  Ixxxvii;  Matter,  Hist,  du  Gnosti- 


LECT.  vii.  THE  OPHITE  SECTS.  103 

contemporary,  he  .regarded  Jesus  as  the  son  of  Joseph 
and  Mary,  called  to  his  Divine  mission  by  the  angel 
Baruch.1 

The  Ophite  heresies,  shocking  as  are  many  of  the 
details  of  their  systems,  are,  as  regards  their  general 
principle,  so  far  less  antichristian  than  the  schools  of 
Simon  Magus  and  Menander,  that  they  at  least  recog- 
nise Jesus  Christ  as  the  central  figure  in  their  teach- 
ings, and  attribute  to  Him,  in  however  perverted  a  form, 
some  kind  of  work  which  they  regard  as  a  redemption. 
But  they  differ  from  the  majority  of  the  Gnostic  sects 
in  making  the  work  of  redemption  begin  with  the 
creation  of  man,  the  work  of  Christ  being  only  the 
last  act  in  a  series  of  struggles  carried  on  between  the 
Divine  Wisdom  and  the  corrupt  Demiurge.2  The  carry- 
ing  out  of  the  idea  involves  such  a  complete  inversion 
of  Christian  doctrine,  that,  instead  of  a  Saviour  who  de- 
livers mankind  from  the  curse  of  the  Fall  and  bruises 
the  head  of  the  serpent,  we  have  represented  one  whose 
saving  work  consists  in  perfecting  that  which  the  Fall 
began,  who  acts  in  common  with  the  serpent  as  a  minister 
of  the  Divine  Wisdom,  and,  according  to  one  form  of  the 
teaching,  is  even  identified  with  the  serpent  himself.  The 
fundamental  principle  of  the  Ophite  theory  is  undoubtedly 
of  Jewish  origin.  The  names  of  their  mythology  are 
clearly  Hebrew.  The  serpent  from  which  they  derived 
their  name  is  the  serpent  of  the  Book  of  Genesis,  the 
tempter  of  man;  and  in  all  the  various  and  discordant 
phases  of  their  teaching  we  may  trace  some  kind  of  per- 
version of  the  Mosaic  narrative.  But  upon  this  Jewish 
foundation  was  erected  a  superstructure,  the  materials  for 
which  were  collected  promiscuously  from  every  form  of 

1  Hippol.    v.    26    (p.     226,    26.  2  Cf.    Baur,     Die     Chr.    Gnosis 

Duncker).  p.  199  seq. 


104  THE  OPHITE  SECTS.  LECT.  vn. 

heathen  superstition.  The  Phrygian  orgies  of  Cybele,  the 
Phoenician  and  Assyrian  mysteries  of  Adonis,  the  Egyptian 
rites  of  Osiris  and  Isis,  the  secret  doctrines  of  Eleusis,  the 
dualism  of  Persia,  the  astrology  of  Chaldsea,  the  fables  of 
Greek  mythology,  the  poetic  cosmogony  of  the  Platonic 
Timseus,1  all  find  a  place  in  that  comprehensive  farrago 
which  marks  the  Ophites  as  the  most  syncretic  of  heretics.2 
The  exact  date  of  these  several  accretions,  and  of  the  con- 
sequent development  of  the  different  Ophite  sects,  it  is 
impossible  to  determine,  though  the  balance  of  probability 
seems  to  incline  in  favour  of  the  supposition  that  a  certain 
amount  of  Judaism  and  heathenism  in  combination  may 
have  formed  the  basis  of  their  teaching  a  short  time  before 
the  Christian  era,  and  that  Christianity,  along  with  fresh 
accumulations  of  heathenism,  contributed  the  materials 
for  a  superstructure  gradually  erected  on  this  foundation.3 
The  primary  conception  which  underlies  all  phases  of  their 
teaching — that  of  the  antagonism  of  a  good  and  an  evil 
principle,  applied  to  the  Mosaic  narrative  of  the  Creation 
and  the  Fall — may  have  been  the  produce  of  an  apostate 
Judaism  in  connection  with  Parsism ;  but  the  great 
stimulus  to  the  development  of  their  systems  must  have 
been  given  by  Christian  influences,4  corrupted,  as  the 
Gospel  was  preached  to  the  dispersed  Jews  in  different 
lands,  by  the  several  mythologies  with  which  they  were  in 
contact. 

The  first  appearance  of  the  Ophite  heresy  in  connec- 
tion with  Christian  doctrines  can  hardly  be  placed  later 
than  the  latter  part  of  the  first  century.5  The  Naassenes, 

1  Hippolytus,  v.  7,  8.     Cf.  Baur,       their  speculations. 

Die  Ckr.  G-nosis  p.  196.  5  Cf.  Baur,  Das  Christenthum  der 

2  Cf.  Harvey,  Irenreus  I.  p.  Ixxxvi.  drei  ersten  Jahrh.  1853,  p.  176.     He 

3  Cf.  Neander,  Ch.Hist.  II.  p.  112;  considers     that    the   oldest    Gnostic 
Baur,  Die  Chr.  Gnosis  p.  196.  sects  are  those  which  do  not  bear  the 

4  The     doctrine  of    the    Trinity  name  of  an  individual  founder,  but 
appears  in  a  perverted   form  in  all  only  one  representing  Gnostic  ideas, 


LECT.  vii.  THE  OPHITE  SECTS.  105 

the  earliest  sect  according  to  the  arrangement  of  Hippo- 
lytus,  are  spoken  of  by  him  as  the  first  body  who  assumed 
the  name  of  Gnostics ;  and  the  reason  which  he  assigns 
for  this  assumption,  fjisra  £e  ravra  sTrs/caXeaav  savrovs 
ryvcoo-TiKovs,  ^dcrKOVTSs  fiovoi  TO.  /3d0T)  rywcaor/csiv,1  combined 
as  it  is  with  an  earlier  name  derived  from  the  serpent, 
and  their  reverence  for  that  being,  can  hardly  fail  to 
remind  us  of  the  words  of  St.  John  in  the  Apocalypse; 
(  But  unto  you  I  say,  and  unto  the  rest  in  Thyatira,  as 
many  as  have  not  this  doctrine  and  which  have  not  known 
the  depths  of  Satan  as  they  speak  (olrivss  OVK  fyvftxra*  TCL 
ftddea  lov  <raTava,  CDS  \syovcrw).'  2  From  this  language  we 
may,  I  think,  infer  the  existence  of  an  Ophite  sect,  boast- 
ing of  its  peculiar  gnosis  before  the  date  of  the  Apocalypse. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  abundant  use  made  by  the  Naas- 
senes  of  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul 3  seems  to  imply  that  their 
acquaintance  with  Christianity  was  derived  from  the 
teaching  of  that  Apostle;  and  the  intermixture  of  this 
teaching  with  legends  derived  from  the  Phrygian  worship 
of  Cybele  seems  naturally  to  refer  us  to  that  second 
Apostolical  journey,  in  which  St.  Paul  went  throughout 
Phrygia  and  the  region  of  Galatia.4  The  date  of  St. 
Paul's  first  visit  to  this  region  may  be  placed  in  the  year 
51  or  52,  and  that  of  his  second  visit  in  54  ;5  and  the  rise 
of  the  Naassene  heresy  may  therefore  probably  be  placed 
somewhere  between  this  period  and  the  latter  part  of  the 
reign  of  Domitian.  The  supposition  that  Ophite  doctrines 
were  in  existence  as  a  pretended  Christian  philosophy, 

and  specifies  the  Ophites  as  of  this  8  See  the  quotations  in  Hippoly- 

class.     It  is  probable  however,  that  tus,  v.  7. 

some  of  the  details  recorded  by  Hip-  4  Acts  xvi.  6.    For  a  second  visit, 

polytus    represent   a    later   develop-  during  his  third  journey,    cf.   Acts 

ment.     Cf.  Milman,  Hist,  of  Christi-  xviii.  23. 

anity  II.  p.  83.  5  Cf.     Lightfoot    on     Galatians 

1  Hippol.  Eef.  Her.  v.  6.  pp.  22,  24. 

2  Eev.  ii.  24. 


106  THE  OPHITE  SECTS.  LECT.  vii. 

and  were  exercising  a  corrupting  influence  on  the  Church 
at  the  date  of  the  Apocalypse,  gives  an  additional  signifi- 
cance to  a  later  passage  of  the  same  book,  in  which  the 
Apostle  describes  the  casting  out  from  heaven  of  the 
great  dragon,  'that  old  serpent,  called  the  Devil,  and 
Satan,  which  deceiveth  the  whole  world.' l 

Notwithstanding  the  dualism  which  appears  on  the 
surface  of  the  Ophite  representation  of  the  struggle 
between  Sophia  and  laldabaoth,  we  find  lurking  at  the 
foundation  of  the  theory  a  conception  which,  if  not  iden- 
tical with  pantheism,  admits  of  an  easy  development  into 
it.  The  Sophia  Prunikos,  the  great  agent  in  all  that  goes 
on  in  the  world,  is  in  fact  a  mythical  representation  of 
the  soul  of  the  universe ; 2  and,  though  the  relation  in 
which  this  principle  stands  to  a  primitive  material  chaos 
prevents  us  from  identifying  it  with  the  universe,  it  never- 
theless appears  as  the  one  active  principle  to  which  all 
that  takes  place  in  the  world  may  ultimately  be  traced, 
laldabaoth,  the  antagonistic  power,  is  an  emanation  from 
the  Sophia,  and  all  the  powers  deriving  their  being  from, 
him  are  remotely  emanations  from  the  same  source.  The 
inert  mass  of  matter  plays  a  merely  passive  part  in  the 
theory ;  that  which  forms  the  central  point  of  it  is  the 
doctrine  of  a  mundane  soul,  the  source  of  all  spiritual  life, 
which  attracts  to  itself  whatever  has  emanated  from  it.3 
The  end  moreover  of  the  redemption  by  Christ  has  a 
similar  pantheistic  character.  Jesus  after  his  resurrection 
ascends  into  heaven  and  sits  on  the  right  hand,  not  of  the 
Divine  Father,  but  of  laldabaoth  the  Demiurge;  his 
office  being  to  draw  to  himself,  unobserved  by  the  latter, 
all  the  souls  that  are  purified  by  the  redemption  and 
released  from  the  tabernacle  of  sense.  In  proportion  as 

1  Rev.  xii.  9.  II.  p.  107. 

2  Cf.    Neander,    Church    History  3  Neander,  I.  c. 


IECT.  vii.  THE  OPHITE  SECTS.  107 

Jesus  becomes  enriched  in  his  own  spirit  by  this  attraction 
to  himself  of  kindred  natures,  laldabaoth  is  deprived  of 
his  higher  virtues,  and  is  finally  stripped  of  all  intelligence 
and  power,  when  the  spiritual  life  confined  in  nature  is 
fully  emancipated,  and  once  more  absorbed  into  the  mun- 
dane soul  from  which  it  originally  emanated.1 

Viewed  in  this  light  as  an  imperfectly  developed 
scheme  of  pantheism,  the  Ophite  theory  acquires  a  new 
interest  and  importance  when  we  see  one  of  its  principal 
features  reproduced  in  the  philosophical  pantheism  of  a 
later  age.  The  irpwrov  tysvSos,  the  fundamental  and 
ineradicable  error  of  pantheism,  that  of  ignoring  the 
difference  between  good  and  evil,  disguised  in  Ophism 
under  the  image  of  an  evil  emanating  from  good  as  a 
transient  phenomenon  in  the  action  of  the  mundane  soul, 
appears  in  a  more  logical  form  in  the  representation 
which,  by  making  evil  a  necessary  moment  in  the  rhythm 
of  existence,  deprives  it  of  all  that  makes  it  evil,  and  even 
gives  it  the  name  of  good. 

After  contemplating  the  Ophite  theory  of  the  fall  of 
man  as  a  stage  in  the  process  of  his  elevation  to  spiritual 
life,  we  are  startled  to  come  across  the  same  representation 
in  the  writings  of  a  philosopher  who  stands  at  the  head  of 
German  thought  in  the  last  generation,  and  whose  genius, 
doing  all  that  man  could  do  to  adorn  with  Christian  em- 
bellishment a  conception  essentially  pantheistic,  has, 
consciously  or  unconsciously,  succeeded  only  in  repro- 
ducing this  wildest  of  the  disordered  dreams  of  heathen 
Gnosticism.  'The  state  of  innocence,'  says  Hegel,  e in 
which  there  is  for  man  no  distinction  between  good  and 
evil,  is  the  state  of  the  brute,  the  unconsciousness  in 
which  man  knows  nothing  of  good  nor  yet  of  evil,  when 

1  Neander,  Church  History  II.  p.  Ill ;  cf.  Irenseus,  i.  30.  14. 


108  THE  OPHITE  SECTS.  LECT.  vn. 

that  -which  he  wills  is  not  determined  as  the  one  or  the 
other ;  for  if  he  knows  nothing  of  evil,  he  also  knows 
nothing  of  good.'  ...  '  We  find,'  he  continues,  '  in  the 
Bible  a  representation  called  in  an  abstract  manner  the 
Fall — a  representation  which  in  its  great  depth  is  not  a 
mere  accidental  history,  but  the  eternal,  necessary  history 
of  mankind  represented  in  an  external  mythical  manner.' l 
We  are  further  told  that '  it  is  the  eternal  history  of  the 
freedom  of  man,  that  he  comes  forth  from  the  deadness  of 
his  first  years,  that  he  advances  nearer  to  the  light  of  con- 
sciousness, that  good  and  evil  have  both  an  existence  for 
him ; '  and  hence  that  '  the  loss  of  Paradise  must  be 
regarded  as  a  Divine  necessity ; '  and  that,  as  necessitated 
to  come  to  an  end,  this  representation  of  Paradise  sinks 
down  to  a  '  moment  of  the  Divine  totality  which  is  not  the 
absolutely  true.'2  I  do  not  mean  to  extend  this  parallel 
beyond  the  point  which  I  have  mentioned,  or  to  deny  the 
vast  intellectual  and  moral  gulf  which  separates  the  pro- 
found if  misdirected  speculations  of  the  German  philo- 
sopher from  the  undigested  syncretism  and  immoral 
ravings  of  the  Ophites.  But  the  parallel,  so  far  as  it  is 
admissible,  may  be  pardoned  for  the  sake  of  the  moral 
lesson  which  it  teaches — a  lesson  never  more  needed  than 
at  the  present  time.  Every  attempt  to  represent  the 
course  of  the  world,  including  man  as  a  part  of  the  world, 
in  the  form  of  a  necessary  evolution,  or  of  a  series  of 
phenomena  governed  by  necessary  laws,  whether  it  take 
the  pantheistic  form  which  represents  human  action  as 
part  of  a  Divine  process,  or  the  materialistic  form  which 
reduces  it  to  an  inevitable  sequence  of  consequent  upon 
antecedent,  must,  as  the  very  condition  of  its  existence, 
ignore  the  distinction  between  good  and  evil  (except  as  in 

1  Philosophic  der Religion  (Werke  XI.  p.  269). 

2  Ibid.  pp.  271,  272. 


LECT.  vii.  THE  OPHITE  SECTS.  109 

their  consequences,  not  in  themselves),  and  must  annihilate 
the  idea  of  sin,  which  is  not  a  consequence,  but  a  trans- 
gression of  God's  law.  Let  no  philosophy  be  trusted, 
however  tempting  its  promises,  however  great  its  apparent 
success,  which  does  not  distinctly  recognise  the  two  great 
correlative  ideas  of  a  personal  God,  and  a  personal,  that 
is,  a  free-willing,  man.  With  these,  its  efforts,  however 
feeble,  may  be  true  as  far  as  they  go ;  without  these,  its 
most  brilliant  seeming  achievements  are  at  the  bottom  a 
mockery  and  an  imposture. 


110  CERINTHUS,    CAEPOCEATES,  LECT.  vm. 


LECTUEE  VIII. 

CERINTHUS — CARPOCRATES — THE   NAZARENES   AND 
EBKXNTTES. 

THE  heresies  which  we  have  hitherto  been  examining 
exhibit  two  opposite  and  equally  fatal  errors  in  relation  to 
the  Person  of  Christ :  the  one  the  denial  of  His  proper 
Humanity,  the  other  the  denial  of  His  proper  Divinity. 
Simon  Magus,  as  we  have  seen,  though  the  central  figure 
of  his  sj^stem  was  not  Jesus  but  himself,  yet  represented 
our  Lord  as  in  some  degree  his  precursor,  and  distinctly 
asserted  that  He  appeared  in  the  form  of  a  man,  not 
being  really  a  man,  and  seemed  to  suffer,  not  having 
really  suffered.1  The  Ophites  on  the  other  hand,  at 
least  one  portion  of  them,  distinctly  asserted  that  Jesus, 
as  regards  his  original  nature,  was  a  mere  man,  the 
son  of  Joseph  and  Mary ;  that  the  Christ  was  a  separate 
spiritual  being  who  descended  upon  him  at  his  baptism 
and  left  him  before  his  passion :  and  they  are  said  to  have 
asserted  in  proof  of  this  theory  that  no  miracles  are 
recorded  as  having  been  wrought  by  him  either  before  his 
baptism  or  after  his  resurrection.2 

1  Irenseus,   i.  23.   3  ;  Hippolytus,  man  distinct  from  the  spiritual  power 
vi.  19  (p.  254,  Duncker).  Christ,  and  alleged  the  absence  of  mira- 

2  Hippolytus,  v.  26,   says  of  the  cles  before  His  baptism  and  after  His 
followers  of  Justin    the  Gnostic   (a  resurrection  in  proof  of  this  (Irenseus, 
branch  of  the  Ophites)  that  they  re-  i.  30.  14).     The  miraculous   draught 
garded  Jesus   as  the  son  of  Joseph  of  fishes,  John  xxi,  refutes  the  latter 
and  Mary.      Others  of  the   Ophites  assertion.  Perhaps  the  miracles  of  the 
seem  to  have  acknowledged  His  super-  Gospel  of  the  Infancy  were  forged  to 
natural  birth  of  a  virgin  (Irenseus,  i.  refute  the  former. 

30.  1 2).  Still  they  regarded  Jesus  as  a 


LECT.  TIII.     THE  NAZARENES  AND  EBIONITES.  Ill 

Both  these  heresies  were  the  natural  result  of  one  and 
the  same  principle — a  principle  which  before  the  Christian 
era  had  become  dominant  in  the  Grseco-Jewish  philosophy 
of  Alexandria,  and  which,  as  that  philosophy  came  in  con- 
tact with  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  found  a  ready 
application  in  relation  to  the  Person  of  Christ.  The 
principle  in  question  is  that  which  regards  matter  as 
eventually  evil  and  the  source  of  all  evil,  and  which  con- 
sequently found  itself  at  once  placed  in  direct  antagonism 
to  the  Christian  belief  in  a  real  Incarnation  of  the  Ee- 
deemer.  Two  possible  modes  of  evasion  would  naturally 
suggest  themselves,  by  means  of  which  a  kind  of  nominal 
Christianity  might  be  professed  without  the  admission  of 
the  fundamental  doctrine.  The  bolder  and  simpler  resource 
was  plainly  to  declare  that  the  body  of  Christ  was  a  phan- 
tom and  not  a  reality,  and  this  gave  rise  to  the  heresy  of 
Docetism.  A  subtler  and  less  violent  device  was  to  distin- 
guish between  the  spiritual  Eedeemer  and  the  human 
Person  in  whom  He  was  manifested ;  regarding  them  as 
two  separate  and  incommunicable  personalities,  which 
might  for  a  time  be  in  juxtaposition  with  each  other,  yet 
remaining  wholly  distinct,  as  water  is  distinct  from,  the 
vessel  in  which  for  a  time  it  is  contained.  This  was  a 
doctrine  common  to  many  of  the  Gnostic  sects,  its  coarsest 
and  crudest  form  being  found  in  the  mere  humanitarianism 
of  the  Ebionites. 

I  have  already  pointed  out  the  notices  of  the  existence 
of  the  Docetic  heresy  in  the  Apostolic  age,  which  may  be 
gathered  from  the  New  Testament.  The  names  of  its 
teachers  in  that  age  subsequently  to  Simon  Magus  are  not 
known  (unless  indeed  Hymenseus  and  Philetus,  whose 
theory  of  the  resurrection  was  quite  in  accordance  with 
Docetic  principles,  may  be  reckoned  among  them)  ;  but  of 
the  existence  of  the  teaching  there  is  unquestionable 


112  CERINTHUS,   CARPOCRATES,  LECT.  vm. 

evidence  in  the  language  of  St.  John  concerning  those  who 
deny  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh;1  and  a  similar 
doctrine  may,  at  least  with  great  probability,  be  attributed 
to  the  false  teachers  condemned  by  St.  Paul  in  the  Epistle 
to  the  Colossians  and  in  the  Pastoral  Epistles.2 

The  other  form  of  heresy,  subsequently  known  as  the 
Ebionite,  appears  towards  the  close  of  the  first  century 
in  the  person  of  Cerinthus,  a  man  of  Jewish  descent 3  and 
educated  at  Alexandria,  the  head-quarters  of  that  philo- 
sophy from  which  his  corruption  of  Christianity  would 
mostnaturally  emanate.  The  date  of  his  notoriety  as  a 
teacher  may  be  inferred  with  tolerable  certainty  from  the 
well-known  anecdote  recorded  by  Irenseus  on  the  authority 
of  Polycarp,  that  St.  John,  having  entered  into  a  bath  at 
Ephesus,  and  finding  Cerinthus  within,  hastened  out  of  it 
with  the  words,  '  Let  us  fly,  lest  the  bath  should  fall  while 
Cerinthus,  the  enemy  of  the  truth,  is  in  it.54  Other,  but 
less  trustworthy,  authorities  assign  to  him  a  yet  earlier 
date.  According  to  Epiphanius,  he  was  one  of  those 
Judaising  disciples  who  censured  St.  Peter  after  the  con- 
version of  Cornelius  for  having  eaten  with  men  uncircum- 
cised,  and  also  one  of  the  multitude  who  raised  a  tumult 
against  St.  Paul  on  the  charge  of  having  brought  Greeks 
into  the  temple,  and  one  of  the  false  brethren  whom 
St.  Paul  mentions  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.5 
But  the  narrative  of  Epiphanius  is  very  confused,  and 

1  1  John  iv.  2.  times  supposed  to  be  a  contemporary 

2  Cf.    Dorner,   Person    of  Christ  of  Cerinthus  (Epiphan.  H&r.  xxxi.  2), 
I.  p.  220  (Eng.  Tr.).  was   probably    only  a    nickname  of 

3  His  Jewish  descent  may  be  in-  Cerinthus,  from  ^pivQos,  a  cord. 
ferred  from    the    character    of    his  4  Irenseus,  iii.  3. 

teachings ;  cf.  Burton,  B.  L.  p.  477.  *  Epiphan.  Heer.  xxviii.  Epipha- 
His  study  in  Egypt  is  asserted  by  nius  seems  to  have  confounded  St. 
Hippolytus,  vii.  33,  and  by  Theodoret,  Paul's  visit  to  Jerusalem  in  company 
Har.  Fab.  ii.  3.  Cf.  Burton,  B.  L.  with  Titus,  Gal.  ii.  2,  Acts  xv.  2,  with 
p.  175  ;  Milman,  Hist,  of  Christianity  the  later  one  in  company  with  Tro- 
ll, p.  55.  Merinthus,  who  is  some-  phimus,  Acts  xxi.  28. 


LECT.  vm.      THE  NAZARENES  AND  EBIONITES.  113 

all  these  supposed  early  allusions  to  Cerinthus  are  at 
variance  with  the  statement  of  Irenseus,  who  speaks  of  the 
Cerinthian  heresy  as  much  later  than  that  of  the  Mco- 
laitans.1 

The  principal  features  of  the  teaching  of  Cerinthus  are 
given  in  the  following  brief  summary  by  Irenseus,  who  is 
followed  almost  word  for  word  by  Hippolytus.  I  have 
already  quoted  this  passage  in  a  former  lecture,  but  it  may 
be  as  well  to  repeat  it  here :  ( A  certain  Cerinthus  in  Asia 
taught  that  the  world  was  not  made  by  the  Supreme  God, 
but  by  a  certain  power  altogether  separate  and  at  a 
distance  from  that  Sovereign  Power  which  is  over  the 
universe,  and  one  which  is  ignorant  of  the  God  who  is 
over  all  things.  He  represented  Jesus  as  not  having 
been  born  of  a  virgin  (for  this  seemed  to  him  to  be  impos- 
sible), but  as  having  been  the  son  of  Joseph  and  Mary, 
born  after  the  manner  of  other  men,  though  distinguished 
above  all  others  by  justice  and  prudence  and  wisdom.  He 
taught  moreover,  that  after  the  baptism  of  Jesus  the 
Christ  descended  upon  Him  in  the  form  of  a  dove  from 
that  Sovereign  Power  which  is  over  all  things,  and  that 
He  then  announced  the  unknown  Father  and  wrought 
miracles;  but  that  towards  the  end  (of  His  ministry) 
the  Christ  departed  again  from  Jesus,  and  Jesus  suffered 
and  rose  from  the  dead,  while  the  Christ  remained  im- 
passible as  a  spiritual  being.' 2 

To  this  brief  account  a  few  further  particulars  may  be 
added  from  other  sources.  Epiphanius  tells  us  that 
Cerinthus  adhered  in  part  to  Judaism,  and  taught  that 
the  law  and  the  prophets  were  inspired  by  angels,  the 
giver  of  the  law  being  one  of  the  angels  who  made  the 


1  Irenseus,  iii.  11.  1.  Cf.  Massuet,  2  Irenaeus,  i.  26.    Cf.  Hippolytus, 

Diss.  Pr&v.  in  Iren.'i.  §  125.  vii.  33. 


114  CERINTRUS,   CARPOCRATES,  LECT.  vnr. 

world.1  Two  writers  of  the  third  century,  Cams  the 
presbyter  of  Koine,  and  Dionysius  bishop  of  Alex- 
andria,2 ascribe  to  him  the  doctrine  that  there  would  be 
a  temporal  reign  of  Christ  upon  earth  for  a  thousand 
years,  to  be  spent  in  sensual  delights;  and  the  former 
seems  to  have  gone  so  far  as  to  maintain  that  Cerinthus 
forged  the  Kevelation  of  St.  John  to  give  support  to  his 
views.3 

Dismissing  this  Chiliastic  theory,  which  has  nothing 
in  common  with  Gnosticism,  and  which,  if  held  by 
Cerinthus  at  ail,  can  only  have  been  held  by  an  inconsis- 
tent attempt  to  unite  the  theories  of  opposite  schools,4  we 
may  observe  in  those  parts  of  the  teaching  of  Cerinthus 
which  have  a  properly  Gnostic  character  one  or  two 
peculiarities  which  indicate,  in  like  manner,  a  partial  and 
somewhat  inconsistent  adhesion  to  the  doctrines  which  he 
had  adopted  and  developed  from  his  Alexandrian  teachers.5 
In  common  with  the  majority  of  the  Gnostics  he  borrowed 
from  the  school  of  Philo  the  theory  which  made  the 
Creator  of  the  world  a  distinct  being  from  the  Supreme 
God,  and  in  common  also  with  the  majority  of  the 
Gnostics  he  engrafted  a  pseudo- Christianity  upon  this 
pseu do- Judaism  by  interposing  a  series  of  intermediate 
powers  between  the  Supreme  God  and  the  Creator,  so  as  to 
make  the  latter  distinct  from  the  former,  and  to  leave' 
room  for  the  work  of  the  Christ  as  mediating  between  the 
two.  At  the  same  time  Cerinthus  must  be  placed  among, 
and  indeed  as  the  earliest  known  name  among,  those 
Gnostics  who  were  on  the  whole  disposed  to  look  favour- 

1  H(gr.  xxviii.  accounts  of  the  sensual  Chiliasm  of 

2  Euseb.  H.  E.  iii.  28.  Cerinthus  to  be  misrepresentations. 

3  Of.  Horth.  Bel.  Sacr.  II.  p.  15.  5  Neander,    Ch.   Hist.   II.   p.  43, 

4  Cf.    Dorner,    Person  of  Christ  points  out  the  resemblances  between 
I.  p.  197.      Both  Mosheim  (De  Rebus  the  teaching  of  Cerinthus  and  that  of 
Christ,  ante  Const,  p.  199)  and  Nean-  Philo. 

der  (Ch.  Hist.  II.  p.  47)  consider  the 


LECT.  VHI.       THE  NAZARENES  AND  EBIONITES.  115 

ably  on  the  Jewish  religion,  regarding  it  as  imperfect 
indeed,  but  not  as  evil.  The  Demiurge  in  his  system  is 
represented  as  ignorant  of  the  Supreme  God,  but  not  as 
hostile  to  Him ;  the  mission  of  the  Christ  is  not  to  oppose 
and  undo  the  work  of  the  Creator,  but  to  supply  its  defi- 
ciencies by  a  higher  revelation. 

The  Christology  of  Cerinthus,  though  less  exaggerated 
in  some  of  its  errors  than  that  of  some  of  the  later 
Gnostics,  betrays  at  the  same  time  its  essentially  Gnostic 
character.  The  mission  of  the  Christ,  His  purpose  in 
coming  into  the  world,  is  not  to  save  His  people  from  their 
sins,  but  to  enlighten  their  minds  by  proclaiming  the 
Supreme  God.  He  is  not  so  much  a  redeemer  as  a 
teacher,  and  a  teacher  not  of  righteousness  so  much  as 
of  speculative  knowledge.  The  separation  of  Christ  from 
Jesus  asserted  by  Cerinthus,  and  his  refusal  to  allow  to  the 
spiritual  teacher  any  share  in  the  sufferings  of  the  human 
instrument,  show  how  entirely  the  conception  of  the 
supreme  excellency  of  knowledge  had  removed  from  his 
mind  all  appreciation  of  Divine  love,  all  apprehension  of 
the  nature  of  sin  and  the  need  of  atonement.1  Yet  while 
depriving  the  death  of  Jesus  of  its  chief  significance,  and 
reducing  His  birth  to  the  level  of  that  of  an  ordinary  man, 
Cerinthus  seems  to  have  been  unable  to  resist  the  evidence 
of  a  fact  which  militated  against  his  whole  philosophy  and 
overthrew  the  main  pillar  on  which  it  rested.  He  was 
unable  to  deny  that  the  crucified  Jesus  had  risen  again 
from  the  dead.  It  is  scarcely  possible  that  he  could  have 
brought  this  great  truth  into  any  coherence  with  the 
general  principles  of  his  system;  but  the  fact  of  his 
accepting  it  notwithstanding  shows  the  strength  of  the 
conviction,  produced  by  the  preaching  of  the  Apostles,  in 

1  Cf.  Dorner,  Person  of  Christ  I.  p.  197  (Eng.  Tr.). 
i  2 


116  CERINTHUS,   CARPOCRATES,  LECT.  vra. 

this  central  doctrine  to  which  it  was  especially  their  office 
to  bear  witness.1 

According  to  the  testimony  of  Irenseus  in  a  later  part 
of  his  work,  the  Gospel  of  St.  John  was  written  for  the 
purpose  of  refuting  the  heretical  doctrines  maintained  by 
Cerinthus,  and  before  him  by  the  Nicolaitans.2  The  two 
errors  which  he  specifies  are  the  separation  of  God  the 
Father  from  the  Creator  of  the  world,  and  the  separation 
of  Christ  from  Jesus.  I  have  in  a  former  lecture  pointed 
out  some  passages  in  the  beginning  of  St.  John's  Gospel 
as  well  as  in  his  First  Epistle,  which  appear  to  be  directed 
against  these  errors,  and  I  may  now  add  that  a  similar 
purpose  may  perhaps  be  discerned  in  the  Apostle's  own 
declaration  at  the  end  of  the  last  chapter  but  one  of  his 
Gospel :  '  These  are  written  that  ye  might  believe  that 
Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  and  that  believing  ye 
might  have  life  through  His  name.' 

A  curious  circumstance  is  mentioned  by  Epiphanius 
concerning  the  followers  of  this  heretic,  which  some 
modern  as  well  as  ancient  commentators  have  applied  to 
explain  a  difficult  passage  in  the  writings  of  St.  Paul. 
'A  story,'  says  Epiphanius,  'has  come  down  to  us  by 
tradition,  that  when  any  of  them  happened  to  die  without 
baptism,  others  were  baptized  in  their  name  instead  of 
them,  that  they  might  not,  when  they  rose  again  at  the 
resurrection,  suffer  punishment  for  not  having  received 
baptism,  and  become  subject  to  the  power  of  the  Creator 
of  the  world.  It  was  for  this  reason,  as  the  tradition  says 

1  Epiphanius  (Hcer.  xxviii)  speaks  "been  a  meaningless  fact.     If  so,  how 

of  Cerinthns  as  asserting  that  Christ  strong  must  have  been  the  evidence 

had  not  yet  risen,   but   awaited  the  which  compelled    him  to   admit   it! 

final  resurrection.     But  Irenseus,  fol-  Burton,  B.  L.  note  77,  endeavours,  not 

lowed  by  Hippolytus,  expressly  says  very  successfully,    to   reconcile    the 

that  he  asserted  that  Jesus  had  risen.  contradictory  accounts. 

Dorner(I.p.l98)saysthattoCerinthus  2  Irenseus,  iii.  11. 
the  resurrection  of  Christ  must  have 


LECT.  vin.      THE  NAZARENES  AND  EBIONITES.  117 

which  is  come  down  to  us,  that  the  holy  Apostle  said,  If 
the  dead  rise  not  at  all,  why  are  they  then  baptized  for  them  ?  M 
Epiphanius  himself  does  not  adopt  this  interpretation, 
which  however  has  found  favour  with  one  or  two  of  the 
Fathers  and  several  modern  writers.2  The  supposition 
however,  that  Cerinthus  or  his  followers  are  actually 
alluded  to  by  St.  Paul,  is  hardly  reconcilable  with  chro- 
nology; and  if  we  adopt  this  interpretation,  we  must 
suppose  the  practice  to  have  existed  at  a  somewhat  earlier 
period,  either  among  a  party  in  the  Corinthian  Church 
itself,  or  possibly  among  some  heretics  who  went  beyond 
the  Corinthians  in  denying  the  resurrection  altogether, 
and  whom  St.  Paul  here  refutes  by  reference  to  their  own 
practice  :  ( What  will  become  of  those  (rl  Trovjorovcrtv)  who 
are  in  the  habit'  of  being  baptized  (ol  Paimtypsvoi,  not 
fiaiTTLoOsvTss)  for  the  dead?'  .  .  .  'Why,'  he  continues, 
6  do  we  (TI  Kal  ripels)  stand  in  jeopardy  every  hour  ?  ' 
By  this  change  from  the  third  person  to  the  first,  the 
Apostle  seems  to  separate  himself  and  those  to  whom  he 
is  writing  from  the  persons  who  observed  this  custom  of 
vicarious  baptism,  and  thus  to  imply  a  condemnation  of 
the  practice.3 

Opinions  very  similar  to  those  of  Cerinthus  are  attri- 
buted to  another  Gnostic  teacher,  who  probably  lived 
about  the  same  time,  Carpocrates.4  His  exact  date  has 
been  a  matter  of  dispute,  and  he  is  said,  in  conjunction 
with  his  son  Epiphanes,  to  have  carried  his  heresy  to  its 
height  in  the  reign  of  Hadrian ;  but,  as  Hadrian  began 
his  reign  in  A.D.  11 7,  this  statement  is  perfectly  consistent 
with  the  supposition  that  the  father  may  have  commenced 
his  teaching  in  the  previous  century,  and  thus  far  have 

1  Epiph.  H&r.  xxviii.  6,  translated  8  See  Alford,   I.  c.,  and  Burton, 
by  Burton,  B.  L.  note  78.  B.  L.  p.  180. 

2  See  Burton,  B.  L.  note  78,  and  *  Theodoret,  Hcer.  Fab.  i.  5. 
Alford  on  1  Cor.  xv.  29. 


118  CERINTHUS,   CARPOCRATES,  LECT,  vm. 

been  contemporary  with  Cerinthus,  and  with  the  later 
years  of  St.  John's  life.1  In  favour  of  assigning  this 
early  date,  it  may  be  observed  that  the  Fathers  in  general 
place  Carpocrates  before  Cerinthus,2  and  that  Irenseus 
seems  to  speak  of  his  followers  as  the  first  who  assumed 
the  name  of  Gnostics — a  distinction  which  Hippolytus 
awards  to  the  Naassenes,  a  branch  of  the  Ophites.3  The 
doctrines  of  Carpocrates  have  indeed  a  considerable 
affinity  to  some  of  the  Ophite  theories,  as  well  as  to  those 
of  Cerinthus.  His  opinion  concerning  the  Person  of 
Christ  is  stated  by  Irenseus  in  language  very  similar  to 
that  which  he  employs  in  speaking  of  Cerinthus.  '  Car- 
pocrates,' he  says,4  c  and  his  followers  say  that  the  world 
and  the  things  that  are  therein  were  made  by  angels  far 
inferior  to  the  unbegotten  Father.  They  also  say  that 
Jesus  was  the  son  of  Joseph  and  born  after  the  manner  of 
other  men,5  but  differed  from  the  rest  of  mankind  in  that 
His  soul,  being  stedfast  and  pure,  remembered  those 
things  which  it  had  witnessed  in  that  revolution  in  which 
it  was  carried  round  with  the  unbegotten  God.  On  this 
account  they  say  that  a  power  was  sent  down  to  him  from 
God,  that  by  means  of  it  he  might  be  able  to  escape  from 
the  makers  of  the  world;  and  that  this  power,  having 
passed  through  them  all,  and  being  made  free  in  all, 


1  See  Burton,  B.  L.  note  75.  says  the  translator  of  Irenseus,  which 

2  Cf.  Burton,  B.  L,  pp.   175,  480.  Eusebius,  iv.  7,  paraphrases  by 
Pseudo  -  Tertullian    (De    Prcsscr.    c.  cupeVews  rrjs   r<av   YvwffriK&v 
48)  and  Philastrius  (Hceres.  36)  ex-  0ei<rrjs  Trare'pa. 

pressly  place  Cerinthus  after  Carpo-  *  Irenseus,  i.  25;  cf.  Hippolytus, 

crates.   Eusebius  (iv.  7)  cites  Ireneeus  vii.  32. 

as  making  Carpocrates  contemporary  5  '  Et  qui  similis  reliquis  homini- 

with  Saturninus  and  Basilides,  which  bus  fuerit.'     Tr.   Iren.     The  text  of 

however  is  not  distinctly  asserted  by  Hippolytus    probably    supplies    the 

Irenseus.  original  Greek  Ka.1  fyuojor  rots 

3  Cf.  Irenseus,  i.  25.  6,  and  Hip-  yeyovdra. 
polytus,  v.  6.      '  Gnosticos  se  vocant,' 


LECT.  viii.       THE  NAZARENES  AND  EBIONITES.  119 

ascended  again  to  God,  as  the  soul  which  embraces  like 
things  will  in  like  manner  ascend.' 1 

Closely  as  the  substance  of  this  extract  resembles  the 
account  given  by  the  same  author  of  the  tenets  of  Cerin- 
thus, there  are  one  or  two  important  differences  to  be 
noticed.  The  maker  of  the  world  is  not,  as  in  Cerinthus, 
a  power  subordinate  to,  yet  ignorant  of,  the  Supreme  God, 
but  a  power  or  powers  hostile  to  God,  and  from  whose 
dominion  the  highest  souls  are  to  be  set  free.  Carpocrates 
moreover  does  not  merely,  like  Cerinthus,  regard  Jesus  as 
a  man  superior  in  virtue  and  wisdom  to  other  men,  but 
he  assigns  a  very  remarkable  reason  for  this  superiority — 
that  His  soul  remembered  those  things  which  it  had  wit- 
nessed in  its  revolution  (ry  irspL^opa)  along  with  the  unbe- 
gotten  God.  We  have  here  an  evident  allusion  to  the 
mythical  description  in  Plato's  Phsedrus  (p.  246  seq.), 
which  represents  the  soul  of  man  as  the  driver  of  the 
chariot  with  its  winged  steeds,  sometimes  permitted  to 
raise  his  head  into  the  upper  sphere,  so  as  to  be  carried 
round  with  the  gods  in  their  circuit  and  to  behold  the 
eternal  forms  of  things.  Notwithstanding  the  similarity 
of  their  conclusions  the  two  philosophers  approach  the 
question  from  opposite  sides.  Cerinthus  deals  with  it  as 
a  Jew,  under  the  influence  of  the  Platonic  philosophy  as 
modified  by  Philo,  and  retaining  a  certain  amount  of  re- 
spect for  the  Jewish  religion  and  Scriptures.  Carpocrates 

1  I  have  followed  the  text  of  Hip-  that  it  might  escape  from  the  makers 
polytus  as  corrected  by  Duncker  and  of  the  world,  and  having  passed 
Schneidewin  :  V  «ol  8i&  iravrcav  through  them  all,  and  being  freed  in 
Xcap'fiffaffav  eV  iraffi  re  cA.et;0ep«0eT<rai/  all,  might  ascend  to  Him,'  etc.  Per 
av€\-r)\v9evai  trpbs  ain6v,  [/cal  d/jLolws  omnes,  like  the  8ta  irdj/Ttav  of  Hippo- 
TV]  T«  8/iota  a-vrfj  affira^o^vnv.  The  lytus,  seems  naturally  to  refer  to  the 
Latin  version  of  Irenaeus  may  perhaps  makers  of  the  world.  In  the  para- 
be  more  exactly  rendered  :  '  On  this  phrase  of  Epiphanius  it  seems  to  be 
account  they  say  that  a  power  was  understood  of  passing  through  all 
eent  from  God  into  the  soul  of  Jesus,  act-ions. 


120  CERINTHUS,   CARPOCRATES,  LECT.  vm. 

deals  with  it  as  a  heathen,  under  the  influence  of  the 
Platonic  philosophy  in  its  original  form,  and  regarding 
the  Jews  and  their  claims  to  Divine  instruction  with 
feelings  partly  of  contempt,  partly  of  hatred. 

These  feelings  are  more  plainly  manifested  in  the 
other  portions  of  the  teaching  of  Carpocrates,  as  recorded 
by  Irenseus.  He  maintained  that  Jesus,  though  brought 
up  in  the  customs  of  the  Jews,  despised  them,  and  therefore 
received  power  to  destroy  those  passions  which  are  given 
to  man  as  a  punishment ;  and  that  all  those  who,  like 
him,  could  despise  the  powers  which  created  the  world, 
could  become  as  great  and  even  greater  than  he  and  his 
Apostles.  The  means  which  he  recommended  to  those 
who  would  show  their  contempt  for  the  Creator  and  His 
laws  were  of  the  same  flagitious  character  which  we  have 
already  seen  in  the  cognate  doctrines  of  the  Cainites.  He 
is  said  to  have  taught  that  it  was  necessary  for  those  who 
aspired  to  the  higher  life  to  pass  through  every  form  of 
action  usually  reputed  sinful,  in  order  to  complete  their 
defiance  of  the  powers  which  rule  the  world,1  and  that 
those  who  did  not  complete  their  allotted  task  in  a  single 
body  must  migrate  after  death  into  another,  till  the  duty 
was  accomplished.  Here  again  we  see  the  conclusion  of 
the  poetical  mysteries  in  the  Phsedrus  distorted  from  its 
original  purpose  to  serve  as  a  cloak  for  licentiousness. 
That  transmigration  of  souls  into  successive  bodies  which 
Plato  represents  as  taking  place  for  their  punishment 
or  for  their  purification  2  is  polluted  in  the  hands  of 

1  Euseb.   H.  E.  iv.   7    rovrois   re  appi)Toirotias    airovfi/jLavras  XP*a-     Cf. 

aico\ov0(as  Trdvra  $pa.v  xp^val  StSatrKety  Irenseus  i.  25,  where  this  monstrous 

ra  alffxp°vP7^ra'ra  T0"s  jueAAovras  els  doctrine  is  connected  with  the  theory 

rb  reXeLov  TTJS   KOT'  avrovs  /^va-rayca-  of  transmigration.     See  also  Tertul- 

ytas     $     not     /j.a\\ov      p.vffapoirodas  lian,  De  Anim.  35,  and   Hippolytus, 

e \fvffeffdai,  ws  jit}?  Uv  &\\cos  eK^ei/lo^e-  vii.  32. 
vovs   robs    Koff/jLiKovs  (&s    &v   ettclvoi.  2  Phcedrus  pp.  248,  249. 

&PXOVTO.S,  ^    ovxl  T«o"t  Ta  8t' 


LECT.  vm.       THE  NAZARENES  AND  EBIONITES.  121" 

Carpocrates  so  as  to  become  the  expected  means  of  wal- 
lowing in  every  variety  of  vice,  and  even  the  mode  of 
representing  its  practice  in  the  light  of  a  duty. 

Epiphanes,  the  son  of  Carpocrates  by  a  Cephallenian 
mother,  is  said  to  have  been  honoured  by  the  inhabitants  of 
Same  in  Cephalleiiia  as  a  god,  though  he  died  at  the  early 
age  of  seventeen.  This  precocious  philosopher  was  cer- 
tainly not  overburdened  with  modesty  011  account  of  his 
youth ;  indeed  his  philosophy  was  of  that  kind  which  a  for- 
ward boy  might  be  very  apt  at  learning  and  teaching.  He 
wrote  a  book  '  On  Justice,'  a  fragment  of  which  is  pre- 
served by  Clement  of  Alexandria ;  in  which,  enlarging  on 
a  suggestion  of  Plato,  in  whose  philosophy  he  had  been 
instructed  by  his  father,  he  openly  advocated  the  most 
licentious  theories  of  communism,  asserting  that  the 
natural  life  of  man  was  similar  to  that  of  the  brutes,  and 
that  the  law,  by  introducing  the  distinction  of  meum 
and  tuum,  was  the  real  author  of  the  sin  of  theft  and 
adultery.  In  support  of  this  licentious  twaddle  he  per- 
verted the  words  of  St.  Paul,  that  '  by  the  law  is  the 
knowledge  of  sin'  (Rom.  iii.  20),  and  sneered  at  the  tenth 
commandment  as  making  the  sin  which  it  condemned,  by 
recognising  the  right  of  property.1 

It  is  difficult  to  imagine  how  doctrines  like  these,  so 
flagrantly  opposed  to  the  teaching  of  the  Gospel,  can  have 
been  coupled  with  the  slightest  respect  for  the  person  of 
Jesus  or  the  precepts  delivered  by  Him.  In  explanation  of 
this  difficulty,  the  disciples  of  Carpocrates  seem  to  have  had 
recourse  to  the  convenient  fiction  of  an  exoteric  teaching 
which  they  said  that  Jesus  had  taught  to  His  Apostles  and 
disciples  in  private,  and  had  bidden  them  to  teach  to  those 
who  were  worthy  of  it.  The  substance  of  this  teaching 

1  Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  iii.  2  (p.  514). 


122  CERINTHUS,    CARPOCRATES,  LECT.  vm, 

seems  to  have  been  that  faith  and  love  alone  were  neces- 
sary to  salvation,  all  other  things  being  naturally  indif- 
ferent, and  made  good  or  bad  by  the  opinion  of  men.1 
Here  again  we  find  Christianity  made  the  vehicle  for 
teaching  a  heathen  philosophy ;  not  however  the  philo- 
sophy of  Plato,  but  the  worst  of  the  paradoxes  of  his 
adversaries  the  Sophists.  In  the  whole  teaching  of  the 
Carpocratians,  not  only  does  the  heathen  element  prepon- 
derate over  the  Christian,  but  the  Christian  element  is 
reduced  to  its  least  possible  dimensions.  Going  beyond 
Cerinthus,  they  not  only  asserted  that  Jesus  was  a  mere 
man,  born  like  other  men,  but  even  that  the  Divine  power 
which  was  given  to  him  was  no  more  than  may  be 
acquired  even  in  a  greater  degree  by  other  men.  In 
accordance  with  this  teaching  they  are  said  to  have 
honoured  him  among  the  wise  teachers  of  mankind  by 
placing  his  image  along  with  those  of  Pythagoras,  Plato, 
Aristotle,  and  others,  and  paying  reverence  to  them  after 
the  manner  of  the  Gentiles.2  Epiphanes  is  said  to  have 
been  succeeded  by  one  Prodicus,  who  founded  a  sect  called 
the  Adamites,  professing  even  more  shamelessly  than  their 
predecessors  the  principles  of  communism  and  licentious- 
ness of  life.3  Prodicus  is  said  to  have  rejected  prayer, 
probably  as  inconsistent  with  the  supposed  absolute 
nature  of  the  Supreme  God,4  and  to  have  held  that  men 
ought  not  to  profess  their  religious  belief  in  times  of 
persecution.5  Another  branch  of  the  same  antinomians 

1  Irenseus,  i.  25.  ence  of  this  sect.  Yet  a  similar 

?  Irenaeus,  1.  c. ;  cf.  Epiphan.  Hcer.  practice  is  attributed  to  the  Beghards 

xxvii.  6.  or  Brethren  of  the  Free  Spirit  in  the 

3  Theodoret,  Har.  Fab.  i.  6  ;  Clem.  thirteenth  century,  and  again  in  the 

Alex.  Strom,   iii.   4.     The  Adamites,  fifteenth.     Cf.   Mosheim,  II.  pp.  243, 

according  to   Epiphanius   (Hcer.    Iii)  362  (ed.  Stubbs). 

assembled  in  their  churches,  men  and  *  Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  vii.  7.     Cf. 

women  together,  naked,  in  imitation  of  Neander,  Ch.  Hist.  II.  p.  119. 

Adam  in  Paradise.     Lardner  (Hist,  of  6  Tertullian,  Scorp.  c,  15. 

H&r.  bk.  ii.  ch.  6)  doubts  the  exist- 


LECT.  vm.       THE  NAZAEENES  AND  EBIONITES.  123 

were  the  Antitactce,  or  Adversaries  of  the  Creator,  mentioned 
by  Clement  of  Alexandria,1  who  held  that  it  was  a 
duty  owing  to  the  Supreme  God  who  made  all  things 
good,  to  resist  the  commands  of  the  Creator,  the  author 
of  evil. 

Cerinthus,  with  his  semi-Judaising  tendencies,  com- 
bined with  purely  humanitarian  views  regarding  the 
Person  of  Jesus,  may  be  considered  as  the  precursor  of  the 
sects  known  in  the  second  century  by  the  names  of  Naza- 
renes  and  Ebionites.  These  two  sects  are  not  distinguished 
from  each  other  by  the  earliest  writers  on  the  subject, 
and  the  distinction  between  their  doctrines  is  noticed 
earlier  than  their  separate  names.  Irenseus  and  Hip- 
polytus  merely  tell  us  that  the  Ebionites  differed  from 
Cerinthus  and  Carpocrates  in  maintaining  that  the  world 
was  created  by  the  Supreme  God,  but  agreed  with  them 
in  regarding  Jesus  as  a  mere  man.2  The  former  adds 
that  they  accepted  St.  Matthew  alone  among  the  Evan- 
gelists, rejected  St.  Paul  as  an  apostate  from  Judaism, 
and  practised  the  observances  of  the  Jewish  law.  Origen, 
and  more  fully  Eusebius,  distinguish  between  two  classes 
of  Ebionites  :  the  one  holding,  like  Cerinthus,  that  Jesus 
was  a  mere  man,  the  son  of  Joseph  and  Mary ;  the  other 
admitting  His  supernatural  birth,  but  denying  His  pre- 
existence.3  Finally  Epiphanius,  who  is  partly  supported  by 

1  Strom,   iii.   4.     Clement's  terse  rovSevrepov.  f-nclo?>vovrosOdfj.oixevffei5 

description  of  these  heretics  should  be  etpTj/cej/,    ^ueTs    <J>cwri,    noix.evofj.sv    eVi 

read  in  the  original :   yAAAot  rives,  obs  KaraX-ufffi  TTJS  evroATjs  avrov. 

Kal  'AvrirdKTas  KaXovpev,  \4yovo~iv  OTI  2  Irenseus,    i.  26 ;  Hippol.  vii.   34. 

6  fjikv  ©ebs  o  rwv  '6\<av  irarfp  7]fj,wv  etm  The  Greek  text  of  the  latter  enables 

Kal  irdvff  tiffa  irejroiriKfv  aya6d  us   to  correct  an   error  in  the  Latin 

els     5e    TIS    ruv    inr1    avrov  translation   of  the   former.     Instead 

iireffTreipev  TO.  £i£dvia,  T))V  of    '  non  similiter    ut    Cerinthus    et 

rS>v  KO.KWV  fytiffiv  yevvfiffas,  ols  Kal  $))  Carpocrates     opinantur,'    we  should 

•n-dvras    facis    irepieftaXev,     avrird^as  clearly  read  '  similiter  ut,'  etc. 

rijuas    T<f    irarpi.     Sib    S^   Kal    avrol  8  Euseb.  H.  E.  iii.  27  ;  cf.  Origen, 

avTira<r<r6/j.eOa  rovrtf   fls  e«5tKiav  TOU  o.  Cels.  v.  61. 
TraTp6s,   uvTiirpaffcrovTes  rtp 


124  'CERINTHUS,    CARPO  CRATES,  LECT.  v-ni. 

Jerome,  distinguishes  the  Nazarenes  from  the  Ebionites, 
and  describes  the  former  in  language  which  seems  to 
identify  them  with  the  less  heterodox  of  the  two  classes 
of  Ebionites  mentioned  by  Origen  and  Eusebius.1 

Both  names  seem  to  have  been  transferred  in  course  of 
time  from  a  general  to  a  special  signification.  We  know 
from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  that  the  Christians  in 
general  were  contemptuously  called  by  the  Jews  of  Pales- 
tine the  sect  of  the  Nazarenes  ;  2  and  this  appellation 
probably  continued  to  be  applied  for  some  time  to  all  who 
professed  to  be  believers  in  Christ,  without  reference  to 
any  difference  which  may  have  existed  between  orthodox 
and  heterodox  forms  of  Christianity.  From  the  testimony 
of  Origen  3  it  seems  probable  that  the  term  Ebionites  was 
also  originally  a  name  of  contempt  given  by  the  Jews  to 
the  Christians  ;  and  this  serves  to  corroborate,  if  corrobo- 
ration  be  needed,  the  explanation  given  by  the  same  writer 
of  the  meaning  of  the  word  as  derived  from  the  Hebrew 
fvi$poor.*  Yet  both  Origen  and  Eusebius,  who  follows  him, 
seem  to  have  mistaken  the  ground  of  this  appellation, 
when  they  suppose  it  to  have  been  given  to  the  Ebionite 
heretics  on  account  of  the  poverty  of  their  conception  of 
Christ.  As  originally  applied  by  the  Jews  to  the  Christians 
in  general,  it  was  probably  aimed  at  the  poverty  and  low 
estate  of  the  first  followers  of  Christ  in  the  spirit  of  the 
language  used  by  the  Pharisees  of  our  Lord  Himself  : 
'  Have  any  of  the  rulers  or  of  the  Pharisees  believed  on 
Him?  butthis  people  who  knoweth  not  the  law  are  cursed.'5 
The  heretic  Ebion,  who  is  assumed  by  Tertullian  and 


1  See  Epiphan.  Har.  xxix.  7,   8  ;  'I-rjffovv  us  Xpiffr 

Hieron.  De  Vir.  lllustr.  c.  3;  Epist.  *  Origen,   De  Princ.   iv.  22;    In 

ad  August.  112,  c.  13.     Cf.  Dorner,  Matt.  T.  xvi.  c.  12;  c.   Cels.  ii.   1  ; 

Person  of  Christ  I.  p.  191  seq.  Euseb.  H.  E.  iii.  27. 

2  Acts  xxiv.  5.  5  John  vii.  48,  49.      Cf.  Neander, 

3  Origen,  c.   Cels.  ii.  1  'E0t«j/cuoi  Ch.  Hist.  I.  p.  478. 

ol    airb    'lovfiaiuv  T^V 


LECT.  vm.      THE  NAZAEENES  AND  EBIONITES.  125 

others  as  the  founder  of  this  sect,1  may  be  safely  dismissed 
to  the  region  of  mythical  eponymi.  It  is  interesting-  how- 
ever to  inquire  how  two  names,  originally  given  to  the 
Christian  Church  as  a  body,  came  afterwards  to  be  em- 
ployed as  the  designation  of  heretical  sects.  The  names, 
as  we  have  observed,  were,  one  certainly,  the  other  probably, 
originally  given  by  the  Jews  of  Palestine,  and  therefore  to 
Christians  who  were  for  the  most  part  of  Jewish  origin 
and,  in  their  own  practice  at  least,  more  or  less  observant 
of  Jewish  customs.  After  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
this  Jewish- Christian  Church  continued  to  exist  in  Pella 
and  the  neighbouring  region  beyond  the  Jordan,  to  which 
it  had  withdrawn  during  the  siege,2  and  where  it  appears 
to  have  remained  until  the  reign  of  Hadrian  when,  after 
the  revolt  and  destruction  of  Bar-Cochab  and  his  followers, 
the  Roman  city  of  JElia  Capitolina  was  founded  on  the 
ruins  of  the  ancient  Jerusalem.3  In  that  city  no  Jew  was 
permitted  to  dwell,  and  the  prohibition  would  naturally 
extend  to  those  Christians  of  Jewish  origin  who  had  not 
renounced  the  customs  of  their  forefathers.4  This  circum- 
stance led  to  a  division  in  the  Church,  the  Gentile  members 
of  it,  together  with  the  less  rigid  Jewish  Christians, 
establishing  themselves  at  Jerusalem  under  a  succession 

1  Tertullian,  De    Prascr.   c.    33  ;  Hist.  I.  p.  475)  says  that  the  Church 
cf.     Epiphan.    Hcer.    xxx,    and    see  is  said  to  have  returned  to  Jerusalem, 
Neander,  Ch.  Hist.  I.  p.  477.  but  gives  no  authority  for  the  state- 

2  Euseb.  H.  E.  iii.  5.  ment,  and  seems  to  doubt  its  truth 

3  Euseb.  H.  E.  iv.  6.      In  chapter  (see  p.  476).     It  is  possible  however, 
5   Eusebius    gives  a   list   of    fifteen  as  Milman  supposes  (Hist,  of  Jews  II. 
bishops  of  Jerusalem  of  Jewish  race,  p.  431),  that  some  sort  of  rude  town 
down  to   the  time  of  the   revolt   in  may  have  grown  up  on  the  wreck  of 
Hadrian's   reign  ;  but  these,  though  the  city  ;  and  if  so,  it  is  possible  that 
nominally  bishops  of  Jerusalem,  could  the   Judaizing   Christians   may   have 
hardly  have    resided    in    that    city,  gone  back  to  Pella  after  the  edict  of 
which   remained  uninhabited   except  Hadrian.      Cf.  Neander,  I.  c.  p.  476  ; 
by  a  Eoman  garrison  in   its   towers  Lightfoot,  Galatians  p.  304. 
(Josephus,    B.    J.  vii.    1),   till  Bar-  4  Justin,  Dial  c.  Tryph.  c.  16.    Cf. 
Cochab  seized  it,   and   attempted  to  Neander,  Ch.  Hist.  I.  p.  475 ;  Ritschl, 
rebuild  the  temple.      Neander  (Ch.  Entstehung  der  Altk.  Kirche  p.  257. 


126  CERINTHUS,   CARPOCRATES,  IECT.  vm. 

of  bishops  of  Gentile  birth,1  while  the  stricter  Judaizers 
remained  at  Pella,  where  after  the  departure  of  their 
brethren  they  would  naturally  enforce  their  own  rites  with 
greater  strictness  than  ever.  Under  these  circumstances 
the  Jewish  Christian  settlement  at  Pella,  retaining  its 
old  appellations  of  Nazarene  and  Ebionite,  which  from 
terms  of  reproach  had  probably  become  among  themselves 
titles  of  honour,  seems  to  have  gradually  relapsed  still  more 
into  Judaism,  retaining  a  certain  kind  of  acknowledgment 
of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  but  ceasing  at  last  to  acknowledge 
His  Deity  and  pre-existence.  These  heretical  views  would 
naturally  be  developed  into  more  consistency  by  some  than 
by  others,  and  thus  give  rise  to  the  two  divisions  of  the 
Ebionites,  of  whom  the  less  heterodox,  or  Nazarenes,  were 
probably  the  earlier  in  point  of  time.2 

The  Ebionites  (using  the  term  in  its  more  general 
sense)  made  use  of  a  Gospel  which  is  called  by  Irenseus 
the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew,  and  by  Eusebius  the  Gospel 
according  to  the  Hebrews.3  This  work  is  supposed  by 
some  critics  to  be  the  Hebrew  original  of  St.  Matthew's 
Gospel; 4  but,  to  say  nothing  of  the  doubt  whether  such  a 
Hebrew  original  ever  existed  at  all,5  it  is  certain  that  the 
Ebionite  gospel  differed  from  the  text  of  St.  Matthew  in 
many  important  particulars,6  and  almost  certain  that  it 
was  an  Aramaic  translation  of  the  canonical  gospel,  with 
alterations  and  additions  from  other  sources.7  In  the 
fourth  century,  if  not  earlier,  there  were  two  different 


1  Euseb.  H.  E.  iv.  6.  das  N.  T.  pp.  101-103. 

2  Cf.    Dorner,    Person  of  Christ  5  See   Bleek,   Einleitung  p.    109, 
I.  p.  191  (Eng.  Tr.);  Neander,    Ch.  who  shows  the  probability  that  the 
Hist.  I.  p.  476.  translation    was    mistaken     for    the 

8  Irenseus,  i.  26 ;  Euseb.  H.  E.  iii.  original. 
27.  6  For  some  of  the  variations,  see 

4  See  Harvey's  Irenceus,  I.  p.  213.  De  Wette,  Einleitung  in   das  N.   T. 

For  a  full  account  of  various  opinions  §  65a  ;  Bleek,  Einleitung  p.  107. 
on  this  question,  see  Bleek,  Einl.  in  7  See  Bleek,  Einleitung  p.  108. 


LECT.  vm.       THE  NAZAEENES  AND  EBIONITES.  127 

recensions  of  it,  one  of  which  omitted,  while  the  other 
retained,  the  first  two  chapters  of  St.  Matthew.  The 
former  was  used  by  the  Ebionites  proper,  who  denied  the 
supernatural  birth  of  our  Lord.  The  latter  was  accepted 
by  the  more  orthodox  Nazarenes.1 

The  most  noteworthy  feature  in  the  heresies  described 
in  this  and  the  two  previous  lectures,  is  the  testimony  which 
they  indirectly  bear  to  the  universal  belief  of  the  Church 
in  the  Divine  Nature  of  her  blessed  Lord.  Had  it  not 
been  that  the  Christian  consciousness  in  the  Apostolic  age 
was  penetrated  and  pervaded  by  this  belief,  it  would  have 
been  hardly  possible  that  the  early  heretics,  who  desired 
to  retain  a  nominal  Christianity  as  a  cloak  for  their  own 
speculations,  should  not  have  thought  of  the  device,  so 
simple  and  natural  to  the  unbelievers  of  later  times,  of 
regarding  the  Saviour  as  a  mere  man,  a  wise  philosopher, 
a  great  teacher  of  truth,  a  great  moral  example,  as  other 
wise  and  good  men  had  been  before  Him.  But  this  idea, 
so  familiar  to  us  in  the  present  day,  is  nowhere  to  be  found 
among  the  early  heresies.  It  seemed  to  them  more  simple 
and  obvious  to  deny  that  which  was  natural  and  human 
than  that  which  was  supernatural  and  Divine.  The 
earliest  form  of  Gnosticism,  so  far  as  we  can  trace  its 
development  in  chronological  order,  seems  to  have  been 
pure  and  simple  Docetism.2  The  Divine  Being  who  came 
down  from  the  Supreme  God  had  no  human  body,  but  only 
the  appearance  of  one.  The  modification  of  this  belief, 
which  manifested  itself  in  the  Cerinthian  and  Ebionite 
theories,  was  probably  due  to  the  circulation  of  the  first 
three  Gospels,  and  to  the  testimony  which  they  bore  to 


1  Epiphan.  Har.  xxix.  9,  xxx.  14.  (e.g.  Kitschl.  AltJc.  Kirche,  pp.   342, 
Cf.  Bleek,   Einl.   p.   105  ;    Mosheim,  454)  of  the  late  origin  of  Docetism  is 
De  Rebus  Chr.  ante  Const,  p.  328.  very  arbitrary,  and  by  no  means  esta- 

2  The  hypothesis  of  some  critics  blished  by  the  authorities  adduced. 


128  CERINTHUS,   CARPOCRATES,  ETC.       LECT.  Tin. 

the  real  humanity  of  Him  of  whom  they  wrote.1  Even 
then  a  purely  humanitarian  theory  was  felt  to  be  impos- 
sible. The  Divine  element  must  be  retained  in  some  form 
or  other ;  and  this  was  done  by  distinguishing  between 
Jesus  the  man  and  Christ  the  spiritual  being,  regarding 
the  former  as  merely  the  vessel  or  abode  in  which  the 
latter  for  a  short  season  condescended  to  dwell.2  The  work 
of  redemption  was  still  Divine,  though  carried  on  by  means 
of  a  human  instrument ;  it  was  the  work  of  Christ  the 
Spirit,  not  of  Jesus  the  man.  Even  Carpocrates,  the  most 
heathen  of  the  early  Gnostics,  and  the  least  conscious  of 
the  real  nature  of  Christ's  work  and  kingdom,  cannot 
divest  himself  of  the  idea  of  some  supernatural  being, 
some  Divine  power,  dwelling  in  and  inspiring  the  human 
teacher.  The  testimony  of  the  enemies  of  the  faith  is 
thus  far  at  one  with  that  of  its  Apostles  and  Evangelists. 
The  whole  world  was  groaning  and  travailing  together, 
waiting  for  its  redemption,  and  none  but  God  could  satisfy 
the  universal  yearning. 

1  Cf.  Burton,  Bampton  Lectures,  p.  481. 

2  Ibid.  pp.  244-246. 


LECT.  ix.      SATURNINUS,    TATIAN,  BARDESANES.  129 


LECTUEE   IX. 

SYRIAN    GNOSTICISM — SATURNINUS — TATIAN — BAEDESANES. 

6  FROM  Menander,  the  successor  of  Simon/  says  Eusebius, 
6  there  went  forth  a  power,  as  it  were  of  a  two-mouthed 
and  two-headed  serpent,  which  established  leaders  of  two 
different  heresies,  namely  Saturninus,  a  native  of  Antioch, 
and  Basilides,  an  Alexandrian,  who  founded  schools  of 
heresies  hateful  to  God,  the  one  in  Syria,  the  other  in 
Egypt.  Saturninus,  as  we  are  told  by  Irenseus,  for  the  most 
part  taught  the  same  false  doctrines  as  Menander,  while 
Basilides,  under  the  pretence  of  revealing  deeper  secrets, 
extended  his  fancies  into  the  region  of  immensity,  forging 
for  himself  monstrous  fables  of  impious  heresy/1  Thus  far 
Eusebius.  Of  Basilides,  the  founder  of  the  Egyptian  form 
of  Gnosticism,  we  shall  treat  in  our  next  lecture ;  our 
present  will  be  devoted  to  an  examination  of  the  Syrian  - 
Gnosticism,  commencing  with  its  founder  Saturninus.  The 
remark  quoted  by  Eusebius  from  Irenseus,  that  Saturninus 
taught  the  same  doctrines  as  Menander,  is  not,  taken  by 
itself,  strictly  accurate  -}  nor,  when  we  examine  the  context 
of  Irenseus,  does  that  Father  seem  to  intend  an  assertion 
of  the  identity  of  the  teaching  of  the  two  heresiarchs  in  all 
respects,  but  only  in  the  common  points  from  which  both 
started,  namely,  that  the  Supreme  God  is  unknown,  and 
that  the  world  was  made  by  angels.2  In  other  respects 
there  is  a  wide  difference  between  the  two  systems. 

1  Euseb.  H.  E.  iv.  7.  2  Irenseus,  i.  24. 


130  SYRIAN  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  ix. 

Menander,  like  his  master  Simon,  announced  himself  as 
the  being  sent  down  from  the  invisible  powers  as  the 
Saviour  of  the  world.  No  such  blasphemy  as  this  can  be 
detected  in  the  teaching  of  Saturninus,  who,  however 
erroneous  his  views  may  have  been,  propounded  them  in 
connection  with  the  person  and  work  of  Christ,  not 
assuming  to  himself  any  higher  office  than  that  of  teaching 
them.  Hence  he  is  the  first  person  who  gave  to  the 
doctrines  of  Simon  the  distinct  character  of  a  Christian 
heresy,  whereas  in  the  hands  of  Simon  himself,  and  of 
Menander,  they  appear  as  anti-Christian  schemes,  exalting 
their  own  teachers  into  the  place  of  Christ. 

From  Menander  and  Simon,  Saturninus  appears  to 
have  borrowed  three  of  his  principal  doctrines,  namely 
that  of  the  malignity  of  matter,  which  made  it  impossible 
for  the  Supreme  God  to  have  any  direct  relation  to  the 
material  world,  and  its  two  immediate  consequences, 
that  the  world  was  created  by  inferior  powers,  and 
that  the  body  of  Christ  was  a  phantom  only,  not  a 
reality.  With  these  however  he  combined  other  prin- 
ciples of  a  different  kind,  borrowed  from  the  dualism  of 
Persia ;  the  result  of  the  whole  being  a  somewhat  incohe- 
rent eclecticism,  less  bold  than  the  teaching  of  his  prede- 
cessors, but  at  the  same  time  less  consistent.  The  angels 
who  made  the  world  are  represented  in  the  teaching  of 
Simon  as  beings  who,  though  emanating  remotely  from 
God,  are  in  rebellion  against  him,  and  whose  power  it  is 
the  primary  object  of  the  Redeemer  to  destroy.  In  the 
scheme  of  Saturninus,  the  source  of  evil  is  referred,  as  in 
the  Persian  doctrine,  to  an  independent  power,  antago- 
nistic to  the  good  principle,  who  does  not  create  the  world, 
but  endeavours  to  usurp  a  dominion  over  it.  Hence  the 
direct  enemy  of  God  is  not  found  in  the  creative  angels, 
but  in  Satan,  the  leader  of  the  powers  of  darkness ;  and 


LECT.  ix.      SATURNINUS,   T ATI  AN,  BARDESANES.  131 

the  creative  angels  hold  an  intermediate  position  between 
good  and  evil,  fallen  away  from  the  good  power  from  whom 
they  emanated,  but  hostile  to  Satan  and  the  powers  of 
darkness,  with  whom  they  contend  for  the  government  of 
the  world.  So  too  the  malignity  of  matter  holds  a 
somewhat  incongruous  position  in  the  teaching  of  Satur- 
ninus.  His  Docetic  views  of  the  person  of  Christ  and  the 
rigid  asceticism  of  his  practical  teaching  imply  the  inhe- 
rent and  essential  evil  of  matter  as  their  fundamental 
assumption.  But  by  adding  to  this  assumption  the 
Persian  theory  of  a  spiritual  kingdom  of  darkness  (accord- 
ing to  which  theory  matter  is  not  in  itself  evil,  but  only 
capable  of  being  employed  for  evil  by  spiritual  powers), 
Saturninus  encumbered  his  teaching  with  a  double  hypo- 
thesis, whose  separate  results,  though  held  in  conjunction, 
can  hardly  be  said  to  fit  into  each  other  as  parts  of  a 
system. 

The  following  is  the  summary  of  the  doctrines  of 
Saturninus  as  given  by  Irenseus,  the  original  Greek  of 
whose  text  in  this  passage  may  now  be  restored  from  the 
recently  recovered  treatise  of  Hippolytus :  e  Saturninus, 
like  Menander,  taught  that  there  is  one  Father  unknown 
to  all,  who  made  angels,  archangels,  powers,  and  principali- 
ties ;  that  the  world,  and  all  that  therein  is,  was  made  by 
certain  angels,  seven  in  number ;  and  that  man  was  made 
by  the  angels  in  the  following  manner.  A  shining  image 
was  manifested  from  above  from  the  supreme  power,  which 
the  angels  were  not  able  to  detain,  because,  as  he  says,  it 
immediately  again  ascended  above ;  they  therefore  ex- 
horted each  other,  saying,  Let  us  make  man  according  to 
the  image  and  likeness.  When  this  was  done,  he  con- 
tinues, and  when  the  thing  made  was  unable  to  stand 
upright,  through  the  inability  of  the  angels,  but  writhed 

K   2 


132  SYRIAN  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  ix. 

upon  the  ground  like  a  worm,1  the  superior  power,  pitying 
him,  because  he  was  made  in  his  own  likeness,  sent  a 
spark  of  life,  which  raised  man  upright,  and  formed  his 
joints,  and  made  him  live.  This  spark  of  life  then,  he 
says,  returns  after  death  to  those  things  which  are  of  the 
same  nature  with  itself,  and  the  remaining  portions  are 
resolved  into  the  elements  out  of  which  they  were  made. 
The  Saviour  he  supposed  to  have  no  human  birth,2  and  to 
be  without  body  and  without  form,  and  to  have  been 
manifested  as  a  man  in  appearance  only.  The  God  of  the 
Jews,  he  says,  was  one  of  the  angels,  and  because  the 
Father  wished  to  depose  all  the  principalities  from  their 
sovereignty,3  Christ  came  to  depose  the  God  of  the  Jews, 
and  for  the  salvation  of  those  who  trust  in  him,  that  is  to 
say,  of  those  who  have  in  them  the  spark  of  life.  For  he 
said  that  there  were  two  classes  of  men  formed  by  the 
angels,  one  evil  and  the  other  good,4  and  that  because  the 
demons  were  in  the  habit  of  assisting  the  evil,  the  Saviour 
came  down  for  the  overthrow  of  the  evil  men  and 
demons,  and  for  the  salvation  of  the  good.  He  asserted 
also  that  marriage  and  procreation  are  of  Satan.  Many 
of  his  followers  also  abstain  from  animal  food,  and  by  this 
false  austerity  seduce  many.  The  prophecies,  they  say, 
were  partly  inspired  by  the  angels  who  made  the  world, 
partly  by  Satan ;  the  latter  being  held  to  be  himself  an 


1  A   similar  fancy  to  this  occurs  served  by   Hippolytus,  is  5ta   rovro 
in  the  Ophite  theory  ;  Irenseus,  i.  30.  (I.  rb)  jSouAeo-flcw  rbv  irarepa  KaraXvaai 
5.  irdvras   rovs   &pxovras,  which  admits 

2  Innatum   (ayevvyrov,    Hippol.),  of    either    construction.       The     one 
which  Neander  understands  to  mean  adopted  in  the  text  seems  more  pro- 
not  born  of  a   woman.  Cf.    Harvey's  bable  in  itself  and  more  suitable  to 
Irenceus,  I.  p.   197.     A  similar  view  the  context. 

was  afterwards  held  by  Marcion.  *  Epiphanius  (Heer.  xxiii.  2)  adds, 

*  The  Latin  translation  of  Irenseus  Svo  yap   irrrrhdcrdai.  cbr'    a 

renders  'propter  hoc  quod  dissolvere  TTOVS  (/xxovcei,  eVa  aya6bv  Kal  eVo 

voluerint  Patrem    ejus    omnes   prin-  ^£  uv  8vo  dli/ai  ra  70/17  T&V 

cipes.'     But  the  Greek  text,  as  pre-  «/  K6ff^y,  aya66v  re  Kal  Trovrip6v. 


LECT.  ix.      SATURNINUS,   TATIAN,  BARDESANES.          133 

angel,  the  enemy  of  the  makers  of  the  world,  and  especially 
of  the  God  of  the  Jews.' 1 

In  this  description  it  is  not  difficult  to  discern  the 
Persian  accretions  engrafted  by  Saturninus  on  the  original 
teaching  of  Simon  and  Menander.  The  seven  angels  who 
made  the  world  are  obviously  borrowed  from  Ormuzd  and 
his  six  Amshaspands ;  only  instead  of  being  placed,  as  in 
the  Zoroastrian  system,  as  the  highest  rank  of  the  celestial 
hierarchy,  they  are  degraded  to  the  extreme  verge  of  the 
kingdom  of  light,2  and  regarded  as  alienated  from  the 
Supreme  Father,  though  hostile  to  the  powers  of  darkness. 
A  supposition  of  this  kind  was  necessary  in  the  scheme 
of  Saturninus  in  order  to  make  room  for  the  work  of  the 
Saviour,  just  as  in  the  theory  of  Simon  and  others, 
borrowed  from  the  Alexandrian  Judaism,  the  creation  of 
the  world  is  transferred  from  the  Logos  to  an  inferior  order 
of  emanated  powers.  The  material  world,  as  in  the 
Persian  theory,  occupies  the  intermediate  space  between 
the  regions  of  light  and  darkness  ;  only  the  conflict  for  its 
possession  is  in  the  first  instance  not  between  Ahriman 
and  Ormuzd  directly,  but  between  Satan  and  the  inferior 
angels  by  whom  it  was  created.  The  nature  of  man, 
formed  as  regards  his  bodily  frame  by  the  inferior  angels, 
but  quickened  by  a  spark  of  life  from  above,  seems  intended 
to  combine  the  theory  of  the  evil  nature  of  matter  with  the 
belief  in  a  spiritual  principle  in  man  and  a  capability  of 
salvation ;  though  the  assumption  of  two  races  of  men, 
good  and  evil,  descended  from  two  pairs  of  parents,  good 

1  Irenaeus,  i.  24.  it  is  however  quite  in  accordance  with 

2  Matter,  vol.    I.  p.  334,  '  Sur  le  Saturninus's  modification  of  Parsism, 
dernier  degre  du  monde  pur,  Saturnin  and  is  perhaps  a  fair  expansion  of  the 
place  sept  anges,  qui  sont  ce  qu'il  y  a  language  of  Epiphanius,  Hcer.  xxiii. 
de  moins  parfait  dans  les  regions  in-  1.  robs  8e  ayy4\ovs  Sifffrdvai  airb  TTJS  &- 
tellectuelles.'      This   position    of    the 

angels  is  not  mentioned  by  Irenseus : 


134  SYRIAN  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  ix. 

and  evil  likewise,1  while  quite  in  accordance  with  the 
arrogant  pretensions  of  Gnosticism,  substitutes  a  kind  of 
inherited  fatalism  and  rigid  necessity  for  the  free  choice 
between  the  powers  of  good  and  evil  which  is  allowed  to 
man  in  the  Zoroastrian  philosophy.  The  hatred  of  the" 
Jewish  nation  and  religion,  which  is  conspicuous  in  the 
teaching  of  the  Samaritan  Simon,  appears  in  a  modified 
form  in  that  of  his  Syrian  successor.  Having  combined 
the  Persian  doctrine  of  an  active  power  of  evil  with  the 
Grseco-Alexandriaii  hypothesis  of  a  passive  source  of  evil 
in  matter,  Saturninus  was  unable  so  fundamentally  to  con- 
tradict both  the  phenomena  of  the  world  and  the  tradi- 
tional source  of  his  own  teaching,  as  to  identify  the  maker 
of  the  world  with  the  evil  spirit.  The  Creator,  the  God  of 
the  Jews,  is  permitted  so  far  to  partake  of  an  imperfect 
goodness  as  to  be  the  antagonist  of  Satan,  while  at  the 
same  time  his  nature  and  his  government  of  the  world  are 
so  far  removed  from  the  goodness  of  the  Supreme  Being, 
that  it  is  a  part  of  the  mission  of  the  Redeemer  to  over- 
throw his  empire,  along  with  that  of  his  enemy  Satan. 

In  his  rigid  asceticism  and  condemnation  of  marriage 
Saturninus  is  quite  consistent  with  his  assumption  of  the 
evil  nature  of  matter  and  the  imperfect,  if  not  evil,  cha- 
racter of  the  Creator,  though  at  variance  with  the  theory 
and  practice  of  his  predecessor  Simon,  as  well  as  of  some 
of  the  other  Gnostics  who  held  the  same  assumptions. 
But  it  has  been  well  observed  that  this  principle,  which 
supposes  an  antagonism  between  the  Creator  of  the  world 
and  the  Supreme  God,  may  find  two  ways  of  expressing 

1  Epiph.an.   Hcsr.   xxiii.    2.    Mil-  receiving    a     feebler    and    less    in- 

man  (Hist,  of  Christianity  II.  p.  63)  fluential  portion  of  the  divine  spirit, 

remarks  on  the  difficulty  of  reconciling  or  whether  they  were  a    subsequent 

the  theory  of  the  divine  origin  of  the  creation  of  Satan,  who  assumes  the 

soul  of  man  with  the  assumption  of  station  of  the  Ahriman  of  the  Persian 

two   distinct  races,  good    and    bad.  system,  does  not  clearly  appear.' 
'  Whether  the  latter  became  so  from 


LECT.  ix.      SATURNINUS,    TATIAN,  BARDESANES.  135 

itself,  both  at  variance  with  the  spirit  of  Christianity. 
'  Among  the  nobler  and  more  sensible  class  it  took  the 
form  of  an  extreme  and  rigid  asceticism,  of  an  anxious 
abhorrence  of  all  contact  with  the  world,  though  to  mould 
and  fashion  that  world  constitutes  a  part  of  the  Christian 
vocation.  In  this  case,  morality  could  at  best  be  only 
negative,  a  mere  preparatory  purification  to  contemplation. 
But  the  same  eccentric  hatred  of  the  world,  when  coupled 
with  pride  and  arrogance,  might  also  lead  to  wild  fanati- 
cism and  a  bold  contempt  of  all  moral  obligations.  When 
the  Gnostics  had  once  started  upon  the  principle  that  the 
whole  of  this  world  is  the  work  of  a  finite,  ungodlike 
spirit,  and  is  not  susceptible  of  any  revelation  of  the 
Divine;  that  the  loftier  natures,  who  belong  to  a  far 
higher  world,  are  held  in  bondage  by  it ;  they  easily  came 
to  the  conclusion  that  everything  external  is  a  matter  of 
perfect  indifference  to  the  inner  man ;  nothing  of  a  loftier 
nature  can  there  be  expressed;  the  outward  man  may 
indulge  in  every  lust,  provided  only  that  the  tranquillity 
of  the  inner  man  is  not  thereby  disturbed  in  its  medita- 
tion. The  best  way  to  show  contempt  of,  and  to  bid  de- 
fiance to  this  wretched  alien  world,  was  not  to  allow  the 
mind  to  be  affected  by  it  in  any  situation.  Men  should 
mortify  sense  by  indulging  in  every  lust,  and  still  pre- 
serving their  tranquillity  of  mind  unruffled.1  .  .  .  Not 
only  in  the  history  of  Christian  sects  of  earlier  and  more 
recent  times,  but  also  among  the  sects  of  the  Hindoos, 
and  even  among  the  rude  islanders  of  Australia,  instances 
may  be  found  of  such  tendencies  to  defy  all  moral  obliga- 
tions, arising  either  from  speculative  or  mystical  elements, 
or,  it  may  be,  from  some  subjective  caprice  opposing 
itself  to  all  positive  law.' 2  The  author  of  these  remarks 

1  Neander  refers  to   Clement    of  2  Neander,    Church    History    II. 

Alexandria;   Strom,  ii.  20  (p.  411).       p.  26. 


136  •          SYRIAN  GNOSTICISM:  IECT.  ix. 

concludes  with  a  warning  which  has  lost  none  of  its  force 
since  the  time  when  he  wrote,  now  upwards  of  forty  years 
ago.  ( In  the  general  temperament  of  the  present  period, 
the  false  yearning  of  the  subjective  after  total  emancipa- 
tion, and  the  breaking  loose  from  all  the  bonds,  holy  or 
unholy,  by  which  society-  had  been  previously  kept 
together,  is  quite  apparent.  And  this  tendency  might 
seem  to  find  a  point  of  sympathy  in  that  unshackling  of 
the  spirit,  radically  different  however  in  its  character, 
which  Christianity  brought  along  with  it.' 

Some  of  the  leading  features  of  the  Gnosticism  of 
Saturninus,  his  separation  of  the  Creator  of  the  world 
from  the  Supreme  God,  and  consequently  of  the  Old 
Testament  revelation  from  the  New,  his  Docetism  as 
regards  the  person  of  Christ,  and  his  practical  asceticism, 
appear  in  the  later  tenets  of  Tatian  and  in  those  of  his 
followers  the  Encratites.  Tatian  was  an  Assyrian  or,  as 
some  say,  a  Syrian  by  birth,1  and  by  profession  a  sophist 
or  teacher  of  rhetoric,  often  travelling  in  various  countries. 
He  came  to  Rome,  where  he  became  acquainted  with 
Justin  Martyr  and  was  converted  to  Christianity.  It  was 
Drobably  as  a  Christian  convert  that  he  wrote  his  extant 
(vork,  '  Ad  Grsecos  '  (Tlpos  "EXXrjvas) ,  an  exhortation  ad- 
dressed to  the  Greeks  in  commendation  of  Christianity  as 
compared  with  the  Greek  philosophy  and  mythology. 
Though  this  work  contains  some  strange  and  fanciful 
speculations,  it  is  difficult  to  discover  in  it  any  positive 
traces  of  the  Gnostic  theories  which  the  author  subse- 
quently adopted.2  After  the  death  of  Justin,  Tatian 

1  In  the    Oratio  ad  Grcec.  c.    42,  Assyria  proper.  See  Moller  in  Herzog, 

Tatian   calls    himself    an    Assyrian.  vol.  XV.  p.  420. 

Clement  Alex.  (Strom,  iii.  12,  p.  547  2  For  Tatian's  views  on  the  Logos 

Potter)  calls  him   a    Syrian.    Tatian  see  Dorner,  Person  of  Christ  I.  p.  280. 

may  have  used  the  words  ev  ry   TUV  His  errors  approach  more  to  Sabelli- 

' Affffvpiuv   yfj  in   a   wide  sense  ;   but  anism  than  to  Gnosticism.     Matter, 

the  probability  is  rather  in  favour  of  vol.  III.  p.  48,  finds  Gnosticism  in  the- 


l" 


LECT.  ix.      SATURNINUS,    TATIAN,  BARDESANES. 


seems  to  have  returned  to  the  East,  where  he  took  up  his 
abode  in  Syria,  and  was  carried  away  by  the  Gnostic  . 
speculations  prevalent  in  that  country.  His  opinions  as 
a  Gnostic  seem  to  have  had  some  connection  with  those  of 
Valentinus l  and  Marcion,  but  were  more  nearly  allied  to 
those  of  Saturninus.2  He  distinguished  between  the 
Creator  of  the  world  and  the  Supreme  God,  and  main- 
tained that  the  words  Let  there  be  light  were  to  be  inter- 
preted as  a  prayer  from  the  former  to  the  latter,3  an  inter- 
pretation which  reminds  us  of  the  doctrine  of  Saturninus, 
which  represents  the  body  of  man  as  formed  by  the 
creative  angels,  while  the  spark  of  light  which  gives  life 
is  communicated  from  above.  He  also  regarded  the  Old 
and  New  Testament  as  the  work  of  different  Gods,4  and 
denied  the  salvation  of  Adam  as  being  the  author  of  trans- 
gression, and  as  condemned  by  the  words  of  St,  Paul, 
In  Adam  all  die.5  His  most  remarkable  tenets  however, 
from  which  his  disciples  derived  their  name,  were  those 
of  practical  asceticism.  Like  Saturninus  he  condemned 
marriage  and  the  use  of  animal  food,6  and  even  went  so 
far  as  to  use  pure  water  instead  of  wine  at  the  Eucharist ; 
for  which  reason  his  followers  were  called  HydroparastatceS 
These  ascetic  doctrines  were  probably,  like  those  of  Satur- 
ninus, the  result  of  an  assumption  of  the  evil  nature  of 
matter,  which  appears  also  to  have  led  him  to  Docetic 


Oratio  ad  Grcscos,  which  on  the  other  s  Clem.   Alex.   Eel.    Prophet.   38, 

hand     is     defended    by    Moller    in  p.  999  (Potter). 
Herzog,  Art.  '  Tatian,'  vol.  XV.  p.  423.  *  Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  iii.  12,  p.  548 

Cf.  Bull,  Def.  F.  N.  iii.  c.  6.  (Potter). 

1  From  Valentinus  he  seems  to  5  Hippol.  viii.  16;  Irenseus,  i.  28, 
have  borrowed  the  theory  of  JEons.  iii.  23  ;  Euseb.  H.  E.  iv.  29. 

See  Irenseus,  i.  28  ;  Euseb.  H.  E.  iv.  6  Irenaeus,  i.  28  ;  Euseb.  H.  E.  iv. 

29.  29  ;  Theodoret,  Har.  Fab.  i.  20. 

2  Moller  in  Herzog,  Art.  '  Tatian,'  7  Theodoret,  Har.  Fab.  i.  20.    Cf. 
vol.  XV.  p.  423.  Cf.  Irenseus,  i.  28,  who  Clem.   Alex.    Pcedag.   ii.  2  (p.    186, 
regards  his  doctrine  as  derived  from  Potter)  ;  Epiphan,  Har.  xlvi.  2. 
Saturninus  and  Marcion. 


138  SYRIAN  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  ix. 

views  concerning  the  body  of  Christ.1  In  accordance  with 
these  views  Tatian  is  said  to  have  compiled  a  Diatessaron 
or  harmony  of  the  four  Gospels,  omitting  the  genealogies 
of  our  Lord  and  all  allusion  to  His  human  descent  from 
David.2 

If  we  regard  the  Syrian  Gnosis  solely  with  reference 
to  the  country  of  its  teachers,  we  must  add  to  the  names 
previously  mentioned  that  of  Bardesanes,  who  lived  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  second  century.  Bardesanes  (or  more 
correctly  Bar-Daisan,  so  called  from  the  river  Daisan3 
which  ran  by  his  native  city)  was  born  at  Edessa  in 
Mesopotamia,  close  to  the  borders  of  Syria,  formerly  the 
capital  of  King  Agbarus,  whose  correspondence  with  our 
Saviour  is  one  of  the  fabulous  embellishments  of  ecclesias- 
tical history.4  The  dynasty  of  the  Abgars  appears  to  have 
continued  down  to  the  middle  of  the  third  century  ;  and 
one  of  these  is  mentioned  as  having  been  the  friend  and 
patron  of  Bardesanes.  According  to  the  brief  account 
given  of  this  heresiarch  by  Eusebius,  who  however  is 
not  supported  by  other  authorities,  he  was  at  first  a 
disciple  of  Valentinus,  but  afterwards  rejected  his  master 
and  refuted  many  of  his  mythical  fictions ;  but  though 
thus  seeming  to  return  more  nearly  to  orthodoxy,  he  did 
not  entirely  wipe  off  the  stain  of  his  early  heresy.5  Epi- 
phanius,  on  the  other  hand,  represents  him  as  having 
been  originally  sound  in  the  faith,  but  as  having  been 
afterwards  infected  by  the  heretical  doctrines  of  the 

1  Hieron.  in  Epist^  ad  Gal.  vi.  8      have  the  same  meaning,  '  leaping.' 

'  Tatianus  ....  putativam     Christ!  4  Euseb.  H.  E.  i.  13.     Bardesanes 

carnem    inducens,'     where     however  is  called  a  Syrian  by  Eusebius,  Prcep. 

Vallarsi  reads  '  Cassianus.'     Yet  the  Evang.  vi.  9* 

doctrine   is  quite    in   keeping    with  5  Eu&eb.  H,  E.  iv.   30.      Epipha- 

Tatian's    opinion.      Cf.     Moller     in  nius  and  Theodoret  say  nothing  of  his 

Herzog,   Art.   '  Tatian,'  vol.  XV.   p.  return  to  orthodoxy,  and  the  account 

423.  of  the  former  seems  to  place  the  ortho- 

2  Theodoret,  Htsr.  Fab.  i.  20.  dox  writings   of   Bardesanes   earlier 
9  Also  called  Scirtus.  Both  names  than  the  heretical  ones. 


LECT.  ix.      SATURNINUS,   TATIAN,  BARDESANES.          139 

Valentinians.1  As  a  Christian,  he  wrote  in  defence  of  the 
faith  and  against  the  errors  of  Marcion,2  and  showed  his 
constancy  by  refusing  to  abjure  his  belief  when  threatened 
with  death  by  Apollonius  the  Stoic  in  the  name  of  the 
Emperor  Yerus.3  As  a  Gnostic,  his  opinions  for  the  most 
part  closely  resembled  those  of  Valentinus,  of  which  we 
shall  give  an  account  in  a  subsequent  lecture,  but  there 
are  one  or  two  features  of  his  teaching  which  more  nearly 
connect  him  with  the  Gnostics  of  Syria,  among  whom,  on 
account  of  his  birthplace,  he  is  classed  by  some  distin- 
guished authorities.4  Like  Saturninus,  he  is  said  to  have 
combined  the  doctrine  of  the  malignity  of  matter  with 
that  of  an  active  principle  of  evil;  and  he  connected 
together  these  two  usually  antagonistic  theories  by  main- 
taining that  the  inert  matter  was  co-eternal  with  God, 
while  Satan  as  the  active  principle  of  evil  was  produced 
from  matter  (or,  according  to  another  statement,  co-eternal 
with  it),  and  acted  in  conjunction  with  it.5 

He  also  agreed  with  Saturninus  in  holding  Docetic 
views  concerning  the  person  of  Christ ;  though  this  error 
was  not  peculiar  to  the  Gnosis  of  Syria,  but  was  shared 
by  some  of  the  followers  of  Basilides  as  well  as  by  Valen- 
tinus and  others  of  the  Egyptian  school,  and  also  in 
another  form  by  the  antagonist  of  Bardesanes,  Marcion. 
Bardesanes,  in  common  with  some  other  of  these  heretics, 
asserted  that  our  Lord,  though  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary, 
took  nothing  of  her  substance,  and  merely  assumed  the 
appearance  of  a  man,  as  he  had  appeared  in  human  form 

1  Epiphan.  H<er.  Ivi.  2.     This  ac-  4  e.g.  Gieseler  and  Matter, 
count  is  accepted  by  Mosheim  (De  s  Cf.  Eph.  Syr.  Adv.  Har.  Serin. 
Rebus  Chr.  ante  Const,  p.  396)  and  xiv,     Opera     V.    p.     468 ;    Pseudo- 
by  Matter  (I.  p.  363)  as  the  more  pro-  Origen,    De    Recta    Fide     sect.     iii. 
bable.  Matter  (vol.  I.  p.  365)  considers  Mar- 

2  Euseb.  H.  E.  iv.  30  ;  Theodoret,  cion  in  the  latter  dialogue  to  have 
H&r.  Fab.  i.  22.  misrepresented  the  doctrine  of  Barde- 

8  Epiphan.  Hcer.  Ivi.  1.  sanes,  but  this  is  not  clear. 


140  SYRIAN  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  ix. 

to  Abraham  and  others  of  the  older  patriarchs,1  and  that 
his  suffering  likewise  was  a  suffering  in  appearance  only. 
In  consistency  with  these  opinions  he  also  denied  the 
resurrection  of  the  body.2 

Yet  Bardesanes  must  be  considered  as  only  partially 
a  Gnostic.  At  least,  the  one  cardinal  error  which 
may  be  considered  as  characteristic  of  Gnosticism,  the 
separation  between  the  Supreme  God  and  the  Creator 
of  the  world,  finds  no  place  in  his  teaching.  God  the 
Father  in  conjunction  with  the  Divine  Word  or,  according 
to  another  representation  of  his  view,  the  Divine  Word 
in  conjunction  with  Wisdom  or  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  the 
maker  of  the  world  and  of  man.3  Bardesanes  also  ac- 
cepted all  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament, 
as  well  as  some  apocryphal  books4  —  in  this  again 
showing  himself  the  antagonist  of  Marcion  ;  and  pro- 
bably, notwithstanding  his  many  aberrations  in  the  direc- 
tion of  Gnosticism,  there  was  no  time  in  his  life  in  which 
he  did  not  consider  himself  a  Christian.5 

Bardesanes  was  the  author  of  a  work  in  Syriac  on  Fate, 
of  which  a  remarkable  fragment  in  a  Greek  translation 
has  been  preserved  by  Eusebius,6  and  of  which  the  whole 
has  recently  been  published  in  the  original  Syriac  text 
with  an  English  translation  by  the  late  Dr.  Cureton.7  In 


1  Theodoret,  Epist.  145   EatevTi-  iii,  v  ;  Epiphan.  HCBT.  Ivi. 

vos  5e,  Kal  BcKTiXefSrjs,  Kal  Eap^fffdvrjs,  8  De  Recta  Fide  iii,  iv.      Cf.  Eph. 

Kal    'Apfj.6vios,    Kal     ol     TTJS    TovTwv  Syr.  Adv.  HcBr.  Serm.   55  {Opera  V. 

ffvunopias,  Se'xoyTOi  jjikv  TTJS  irapQtvov  p.  557),  Serm.  3  (p.  444).  Cf.  Burton, 

TV  Kv-rjtnv  Kal  rbv  rdnov,  oi>8fv  8e  rbv  Lectures   on   Eccl.  Hist.    II.    p.   184  ; 

®ebv  A6yov  e/c  TTJS  irapQfvov  TrpotrctArj-  Matter,  I.  p.  367  seq. 

<pevai   (pcuriv,    oAAo  irdpoSov   nva   Si'  4  Epiphan.  Hcer.  Ivi.  2. 

o»T7Jy  Sxnrep  5to  fftaXyvos  TroiJiffaffGai,  5  Cf.    Burton,    Lectures   on    Eccl. 

4Tri<pavr)vai  8e  TO?S  avdptiirois  (pavracriu,  Hist.  II.  p.  1  84. 

XpT)<raiJ.fvos  «ol  56£as  elvai  &vdpu>Tros,  6  Prcep.  Evang.  vi.  10;  cf.  H.  E. 

bv  rp6irov  &tyOi}  ftf  'Aftpaa/j.  Kai  riffiv  iv.  30. 

oAAois  rS>v    iraXaifav.      Cf.    Pseudo-  7  Spicilegium    Syriacum,   London 

Origen,  De  Eecta  Fide,  sect.  iv.  1855. 

2  Pseudo-Origen,  De  Recta  Fide, 


LECT.  ix.      SATURNINUS,    TATIAN,  BARDESANES.          141 


this  work,  which  Eusebius  calls  frspl 
but  which  in  the  Syriac  is  entitled  '  The  Book  of  the  Laws 
of  Countries,5  Bardesanes  reasons  with  much  acuteness 
and  good  sense  against  the  assumption  that  the  actions  of 
men  are  caused  either  by  nature,  or  by  fortune  or  destiny. 
From  both  these  he  carefully  distinguishes  free  will,  and 
maintains  that  while  the  body  of  man  and  its  animal  func- 
tions are  governed,  like  those  of  other  animals,  by  natural 
laws,  the  soul  is  free  to  choose  its  own  course  of  action,  and 
is  responsible  for  the  choice  it  makes.  In  support  of  this 
position  he  adduces  among  other  arguments  one  which  is 
well  known  to  most  of  us  from  its  employment  in  Aris- 
totle's Ethics,  namely,  that  men  are  not  blamed  for  their 
bodily  deformities,  which  come  by  nature,  but  are  blamed 
for  their  vicious  actions,  as  being  in  their  own  power  to 
avoid.2  Against  the  astrological  fatalism  of  the  Chaldeans 
he  very  sensibly  argues  tliat  the  customs  and  actions  of 
men  vary  in  different  countries,  though  some  of  the 
natives  of  these  several  countries  are  born  under  the  same 
conjunction  of  the  planets. 

Though  sharing  the  opinions  of  Saturninus  concerning 
matter,  and  connecting  it  even  more  closely  with  the  evil 
principle,  Bardesanes  did  not  carry  out  his  doctrines  in 
practice  to  the  ascetic  conclusions  of  his  predecessor.  He 
was  the  father  of  a  son  named  Harmonius,  who  inherited 
his  father's  philosophical  opinions.3  Both  father  and  son 
were  poets  as  well  as  philosophers.  Bardesanes  is  said  to 
have  written  150  hymns,  according  to  the  number  of  the 
Psalms  of  David  ;  4  and  his  hymns  with  those  of  his  son 

1  H.  E.  iv.  30.  4  Ephr.  Syr.  Adv.  Heeret.  Serm.  53 

2  Spirit.  Syr.  p.    ip.      Cf.   Arist.      (Opera  V.  p.   554);  cf.  Matter,  Hist. 
Eth.  Nic.  iii.  5,  15.  du  Gnost.  I.  pp.  359-361;  Milman, 

8  Sozomen,  H.    E.   iii.     16;    cf.      Hist,  of  Christianity  II.  p.  74. 
Theodoret,  Har.  Fab.  i.  22. 


142  SYRIAN   GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  ix. 

Harmonius,  notwithstanding  their  heterodox  character, 
continued  to  be  used  by  the  Syrian  Christians  for  two 
centuries,  till  they  were  superseded  by  those  of  St. 
Ephraim.1 

The  above  teachers  have  been  classed  together  as 
Syrian  Gnostics,  because,  taking  the  term  in  a  somewhat 
wide  sense,  they  may  all  be  considered  as  natives  of  that 
country,  and  because  a  general  affinity  may  be  observed 
between  the  features  of  their  several  systems.  Yet  it 
would  be  difficult  to  select  any  one  positive  doctrine  which 
can  be  regarded  as  specially  characteristic  of  the  Syrian 
Gnosis  as  distinguished  from  that  of  other  countries.  The 
Docetism  which  is  common  to  all  the  above  systems  is 
shared  by  others  of  different  local  origin  ;  and  the  morbid 
asceticism  which  is  characteristic  of  Saturninus  and  Tatian 
does  not  appear  in  Bardesanes.  The  feature  which  is 
usually  selected  as  characteristic  of  the  Syrian  Gnosis  is 
the  doctrine  of  dualism ;  that  is  to  say,  the  assumption  of 
the  existence  of  two  active  and  independent  principles, 
the  one  of  good,  the  other  of  evil.2  This  assumption,  as 
we  have  seen,  was  distinctly  held  by  Saturninus  and 
Bardesanes  ;  and  if  it  is  not  so  directly  traceable  in  Tatian, 
we  have  the  authority  of  Epiphanius  for  attributing  it  to 
his  followers  the  Encratites,  who  probably  borrowed  it 
from  their  master,  with  the  remainder  of  whose  teaching 
it^is  perfectly  in  accordance.3  We  are  therefore  perhaps 
justified  in  selecting  this  tenet  as  the  characteristic 
feature  of  the  Syrian  Gnosis,  in  contradistinction  to  the 

1  Sozomen,  H.  E.  iii.  16.  avTiKei/j.€v7]v   irpbs  ra  rov    ©eou  TTOI^- 

2  Gieseler,      Eccl.     Hist.     vol.     I.  para  KCU  ^  uTrorarrfro/xeVr/j/  0e&3,  aAAa 
p.  143  (Eng.  Tr.).  Icrxyovra  ical  irparrovTa.  &s  KO.T  I8iav 

3  Epiphan.    H<sr.    xlvii.    1    ('  De  e^ovjiav,    nal    ov%    us    eV    TrapfKTpoirr} 
Encratitis ')   (pdffKovffi   Se     Kal   OVTOI  yev6^vov.      Cf.    J.    C.   Wolf.    Mani- 

nvas  flvai  ri\v  re  TOU  5ia^6\ov      chceismus  ante  Manichceos  p.  211. 


LECT.  ix.      SATURNINUS,    TATIAN,   BARDESANES.          143 

Platonic  theory  of  an  inert  semi-existent  matter,  which 
was  adopted  by  the  Gnosis  of  Egypt.  The  former  prin- 
ciple found  its  logical  development  in  the  next  century 
in  Manicheism;  the  latter,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter,  leads 
with  almost  equal  certainty,  if  not  with  the  same  logical 
necessity,  to  Pantheism. 


144  EGYPTIAN  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  x. 


LECTUKE  X. 

EGYPTIAN   GNOSTICISM — BASILIDES. 

IN  proceeding  from  the  Syrian  to  the  Egyptian  form  of 
Gnosticism,  our  first  attention  is  directed  towards  a  man 
who,  if  we  could  accept  the  various  and  conflicting  notices 
concerning  his  teaching  which  have  descended  to  us  from 
different  quarters,  might  be  regarded  as  being  the  con- 
necting link  between  the  two  systems,  and  as  having 
occupied  that  position  by  virtue  of  uniting  in  his  own 
teaching  the  heterogeneous  ingredients  of  the  one  and  the 
other.  And  as  if  at  first  sight  to  justify  this  conclusion, 
we  find  the  same  man  described  as  belonging  in  his  own 
person  to  both  countries :  Syrian  by  birth,1  Egyptian  by 
residence,2  the  disciple  of  the  Samaritan  Menander  and 
fellow  pupil  with  the  Syrian  Saturninus,3  the  preacher, 
according  to  one  account,  in  Persia,4  the  resident  at 
Alexandria,  and  the  student  of  the  Greek  philosophy.5 
Basilides,  the  teacher  concerning  whom  these  several  state- 
ments have  been  made,  has  been  the  object  of  dispute  as 
regards  the  time  in  which  he  lived,  no  less  than  as  regards 
the  doctrines  which  he  taught.  The  language  of  Clement 
of  Alexandria,  who  was  likely  to  be  well  informed  on  this 

1  Epiphanius  (Ifer.  xxiii.  1,7),  cited  2  Irenseus,   i.   24;   Euseb.  H.  E. 

by  Neander,  Ch.  Hist.  II.  p.  47 :  cf.  Mat-  iv.  7. 
ter,I.p.402.    In  the  Disp.  Archelai  et  3  Euseb.  H.  E.  iv.  7. 

Manetis  (Eouth,  Eel.  Sacr.  V.  196)  he  *  Disp.  Archelai,  I.  c. 

is  called  a  Persian,  possibly  to  account  5  Hippolytus,  vii.  14. 

for  the  dualism  there  ascribed  to  him. 


LECT.  x.  BASILIDES.  145 

point,  would  lead  us  to  fix  the  close  of  his  life  at  the 
beginning  of  the  reign  of  the  elder  Antoninus,  who 
ascended  the  throne  A.D.  138.1  St.  Jerome  however 
enumerates  him  among  the  heretics  of  the  Apostolic  age, 
from  which  statement  some  critics  suppose  that  he  must 
have  promulgated  his  opinions  at  least  before  the  death 
of  St.  John.2  Though  the  statement  of  Clement  is  quite 
compatible  with  the  supposition  that  the  youth  of  Basi- 
lides  was  contemporary  with  the  latter  days  of  the  Apostle, 
the  preponderance  of  testimony  seems  to  place  his  prin- 
cipal activity  in  the  reign  of  Hadrian,  i.e.  from  A.D.  117 
to  138.3 

Among  the  various  and  not  easily  reconcilable  accounts 
which  have  come  down  to  us  concerning  the  doctrines  of 
Basilides,  the  most  trustworthy  are  probably  the  occasional 
notices  furnished  by  Clement  of  Alexandria  and  the 
detailed  account  of  the  system  given  in  the  recently  dis- 
covered work  of  Hippolytus  a.gainst  heresies.  The  former 
of  these  Fathers,  from  his  residence  in  the  city  where 
Basilides  had  taught,  had  peculiar  opportunities  of  be- 
coming acquainted  with  the  particulars  of  his  teaching, 
while  the  latter  was  in  possession  of  a  work  written  by 
Basilides  himself,  from  which  he  quotes  several  passages 
verbatim.  Irenseus  on  the  other  hand,  though  earlier  in 
point  of  time  than  both  the  above-named  Fathers,  seems 
to  have  obtained  his  information  from  less  direct  sources, 
and  possibly  in  some  degree  confounded  the  teaching  of 
Basilides  himself  with  that  of  some  of  his  professed 
followers.4  In  the  account  which  I  shall  attempt  to  give 

1  Clem.  Alex. Slrom.\\\.  17, p. 898,       168,    ed.    Schbne ;    Theodoret,    Hcer. 
o?  ...  KOI  /we'xP'  7e  r^5  'A.vra>vivov  rov        Fab.  i.  2. 

TrperrjStrrepou  Stereivav  T]\iKias.  Kaddirep  4  Neander.    Church  Hist.   vol.  II. 

6  BaaiteiS-ns.  p.  113.     Cf.  Matter,    vol.  II.   p.  20. 

2  Massuet,  Diss.  Prcev.  in  Iren&um  So  alsoBaur,  Chr.  G-nosisp.  210,  and 
i.  §  112.  in    his  later   works  referred  to  by 

3  Euseb.  H.  E.  iv.  7  ;  Chron.  ii.  p,  Ueberweg,  Gesch.  der  Philosophic  II. 


146  EGYPTIAN  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  x. 

of  their  doctrine,  I  propose  to  take  as  a  groundwork  the 
exposition  of  Hippolytus,  as  the  most  complete  and  syste-. 
matic,  illustrating  it  as  far  as  possible  from  the  notices  of 
Clement,  leaving  the  other  accounts  to  be  compared 
subsequently  with  the  results  derived  from  these  sources. 
Basilides,  according  to  Hippolytus,  who  is  supported 
by  Clement,1  professed  to  derive  his  doctrines  from  a 
secret  teaching  communicated  by  the  Saviour  to  St. 
Matthias.2  He  also  claimed  as  his  teacher  a  certain 
Glaucias,  said  to  have  been  the  companion  and  interpreter 
of  St.  Peter,3  of  whom  nothing  further  is  known.  Accord- 
ing to  this  teaching,  the  first  principle  of  all  things,  the 
supreme  Being,  is  one  whose  nature  cannot  be  expressed 
by  any  language,  for  he  is  above  every  name  that  is 
named.  He  cannot  properly  be  even  said  to  exist ;  for  he 
cannot  be  identified  with  any  one  thing  that  exists  :  he  is 
rather  to  be  called  absolute_non.texistence.  This  non- 
existent Deity  Hippolytus  compares,  not  very  happily,  with 
the  vorjcris  votjcrsws  of  Aristotle,  and  illustrates  the  theory 
by  an  imaginary  resemblance  to  the  Aristotelian  doctrine 
of  genera  and  species,  which  are  not  identical  with  any  of 
the  individuals  comprehended  under  them.  It  is  tolerably 
evident  however,  both  historically  and  philosophically, 
that  the  source  of  this  teaching  is  to  be  found  in  another 
quarter,  and  that  Plato,  whose  authority  was  predominant 
in  Alexandria,  was  the  philosopher  to  whose  influence  the 
theory  is  mainly  due.  The  language  in  which  the  ideal 
good  is  described  in  the  Republic,  ovic  ovalas  OVTOS  TOU 
ayaOov,  a\\  STL  STTSKSWCL  TTJS  ovtrlas  irpsa/Bsia  KOI  ^vva^zi 

p.  31.     Hilgenfeld  on  the  other  hand  and  in  Thcol.  Jahrb.  1856,  p.  121  seq., 

(see  Uebenveg/.  c.  p.  33)  holds  that  the  all   regard  Hippolytus   as   the   most 

exposition  of  Irenseus  represents  the  reliable  authority. 

earlier  doctrine.  Jacobi,BasilidisPkilo-  l  Hippol.  vii.  20.    Cf.  Clem.  Alex. 

sophi  GnosticiS(ntenti(e,J$erolmi  1852,  Strom,  vii.  17,  p.  900. 

Uhlhorn,  Das  Basilidianische  System.  2  Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  vii.  17,  p.  898. 

Gott.  1855,  Baur,  Das    Christenthum  8  Hippol.  vii.  20. 

der  drei  erstcn  Jakrk.  1853  and  1860, 


LECT.  x.  BASILIDES.  147 


with  the  farther  development  of  the  same 
doctrine  by  Philo,  in  which  God  is  represented  as  without 
qualities  and  not  to  be  expressed  in  speech,2  contains  in 
substance  the  very  same  thing  which  Basilides  has  ex- 
pressed with  some  little  rhetorical  exaggeration,  but  with- 
out any  substantial  change.  In  the  next  century  the  same 
theory  reappears  in  the  Neoplatonism  of  Plotinus,  who 
speaks  of  the  supreme  unity  as  above  existence,3  and 
again,  two  centuries  later,  in  the  expiring  JSTeoplatonism 
of  Proclus,  who  speaks  of  God  as  above  substance  and  life 
and  intelligence;4  and  it  has  reappeared  with  all  the 
advantages  of  modern  philosophical  genius  and  learning 
in  the  resuscitated  Neoplatonism  of  Germany,  in  Schelling, 
who  speaks  of  the  Absolute  as  neither  ideal  nor  real, 
neither  thought  nor  being,5  and  in  Hegel,  who  identifies 
pure  existence  with  pure  nothing. 

The  continuation  of  the  exposition  of  Basilides,  strange 
as  it  may  sound,  is  nothing  but  the  same  theory  expressed 
as  before  in  somewhat  rhetorical  terms.  '  Since  therefore,' 
he  continues,6  '  there  was  nothing,  neither  matter,  nor  sub- 
stance, nor  unsubstantial,  nor  simple,  nor  compound,  nor 
inconceivable,  nor  imperceptible,  nor  man,  nor  angel,  nor 
God,  nor  in  short  any  of  the  things  that  are  named  or 
perceived  by  the  senses  or  conceived  by  the  intellect,  but 
all  things  being  thus,  and  more  minutely  than  thus,  simply 
obliterated,  the  non-existent  God  (whom  Aristotle  calls 
thought  of  thought,  but  these  men,  non-existent),  without 
thought,  without  sense,  without  counsel,  without  choice, 

1  Plato,  Eesp.  vi.  p.  509.  5  Bruno,  p.  58. 

2  Philo,   De   Mundi    Opif.    c.    2  6  Hippol.  vii.  21.    The  text  seems 
(p.   2);  Lcgis  Alleg.  i.  c.  13  (p.  50),  incomplete.     We  should  perhaps  read 
c.    15     (p.    53);    De    Somn.    i.    39  ovx  ^ATJ,  OVK  &w\ov,  and  (with  Uhl- 
(p.  655).  horn,      approved    by     Duncker    and 

3  Enn.  v.   1.  10  TO  eirtxeiva  ovros  Schneidewin)  ov  VO-TITOV,  OVK  avdyrov, 
rb  %v.  OVK  alffOijr6if,  OV 

4  Inst.  Theol.  c.  115. 

L  2 


- 


148  EGYPTIAN  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  x. 

• 

without  passion,  without  desire,  willed  to  make  a  world. 
When  I  say  willed,  I  mean  to  signify  without  will  and  with- 
out thought  and  without  sense ;  and  by  the  world  I  mean 
not  that  which  was  afterwards  made  and  separated  by  size 
and  division,  but  the  seed  of  the  world.  For  the  seed  of  the 
world  had  everything  in  itself,  as  a  grain  of  mustard  seed  in 
the  smallest  compass  comprehends  all  things  together,  the 
roots,  the  stem,  the  branches,  the  leaves,  and  the  innumer- 
able seeds  of  other  and  yet  other  plants  mingled  with  the 
grains  of  the  plant.  Thus  the  non-existent  God  made  a 
non-existent  world  from  things  non-existent,  having  cast 
down  and  deposited  a  single  seed,  having  in  itself  the 
universal  seed  of  the  world.5 1  We  are  further  told  that 
Basilides  rejected  the  hypothesis  of  creation  by  emanation 
(7rpo/3o\r))  or  out  of  pre-existent  matter;  '  for  what  emana- 
tion,' he  asked,  c  or  what  matter  need  be  assumed,  that 
God  may  make  a  world,  as  if  He  were  a  spider  spinning 
its  threads,  or  a  mortal  man  who  takes  for  his  work  brass 
or  wood  or  some  other  material  ?  But,  he  said,  God  spake 
and  it  was  done,  and  this,  as  they  say,  is  what  Moses 
expresses  in  the  words  Let  there  be  light  and  there  was 
light.  Whence,  says  Basilides,  came  the  light?  from 
nothing.  For  it  is  not  written  whence,  but  only  that  it 
came  from  the  voice  of  him  that  spake.  And  the  speaker, 
he  continues,  was  not,  and  that  which  was  produced  was 
not.  The  seed  of  the  world  was  produced  from  things  that 
were  not,  and  this  seed  is  the  Word  which  was  spoken, 
Let  there  be  light ;  and  this,  he  adds,  is  that  which  is  spoken 
in  the  Gospels,  That  is  the  true  light  which  lighteth  every 
man  coming  into  the  world.' 2 

In  this  description,  in  which  it  is  hard  to  say  whether 
sublimity  or  extravagance  predominates,  one  or  two  things 
are  expressly  worthy  of  notice.  First,  it  will  be  seen  that 

1  rfv  rov  K6(r/jiov  iravffirepfji.iat'.  2  vii.  22. 


LECT.  x.  BASILIDES.  149 

Basilides  altogether  rejects  the  attempt,  so  common  among 
the  Gnostics,  to  account  for  the  origin  of  evil  by  the 
/hypothesis  either  of  an  eternal  inert  matter,  or  of  a  self- 
Existing,  active,  malignant  principle.  The  unity  of  his 
first  principle  is  maintained  in  terms  whose  intenseness 
borders  on  absurdity.  He  plunges  at  once  into  the  most 
abstract  representation  of  the  absolute,  and  seems  to  admit 
evil  in  no  other  form  than  as  a  phase  in  the  world's 
development.  His  theory,  if  not  distinctly  pantheistic, 
needs  but  one  step  to  make  it  so.1  The  name  of  God  has 
but  to  be  transferred  from  the  non-existent  to  the  only 
recognised  existence,  the  process  of  the  evolution  of  the 
world,  and  evil  at  once  ceases  to  be  evil  and  becomes  a 
part  of  the  Divine  manifestation.  Secondly,  it  is  easy  to 
trace  in  this  exposition  the  influence  of  Greek  philosophy 
modified  by  Alexandrian  Judaism.  The  non-existent  God, 
as  I  have  already  observed,  is  the  Platonic  absolute  good, 
above  all  definite  existence  ;  the  seed  of  the  world,  with  its 
development  into  definite  existences,  bears  a  close  resem- 
blance to  the  apod  Trdvra  or  primitive  chaos  of  Anaxagoras  ; 
and  the  word  iravaTTSp^la^  which  Basilides  borrows,  is  em- 
ployed by  Aristotle  to  denote  the  relation  of  the  6/xoto/u.spr) 
of  Anaxagoras  to  the  four  elements.2  The  \6yos  aTrspfiariKos 
again  holds  an  important  position  in  the  Stoical  philo- 
sophy as  denoting  the  productive  power  of  nature,  by  which 
the  world  is  developed  according  to  a  fixed  and  rational 


1  Cf.  Uhlhorn,  Das Basilidianische  Zeller,  Phil,  der  Gr.  I.  p.  670.     The 
System.  Gott.  1855,  p.  34 ;  Hilgenfeld  word  is  also  used  by  Aristotle,  DeAn. 
in  Theol.  Jahrb.  1856,  pp.  88,  115;  i.  2,  3,  with  reference  to  the  philo- 
Baur,  ibid.  p.    138.     Yet  this  pan-  sophy  of  Democritus.      It  had  pre- 
theism    is   not  incompatible   with   a  viously    been    employed     by    Plato, 
certain  kind  of  dualism,  as  in  Spinoza  :  Timceus  p.  73  c.     On  the  resemblance 
the  One  presents  the  opposite  side  of  between   Basilides   and   Anaxagoras, 
thought  and  extension.     See  Baur,  see    Baur     in    Theol.    Jahrb.    1856, 
I.e.  p.  146. 

2  Arist.  De  Gen.  et  Corr.  i.  1,  5.  Cf. 


150  EGYPTIAN  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  x. 

law  ; l  and  this  philosophy,  with  its  pantheistic  conception 
of  the  world  and  its  phenomena,  presents  many  analogies 
to  the  theory  of  Basilides.2  But  these  heathen  material's 
are  here  combined  with  a  higher  teaching  borrowed  from 
the  book  of  Genesis  interpreted  somewhat  after  the 
manner  of  Philo.  But,  thirdly  and  especially,  we  should 
observe  that  Basilides  attempts  to  reinforce  his  heathen 
and  Jewish  cosmogony  by  a  Christian  element  borrowed 
from  the  Gospel  of  St.  John ;  and  this  newly  recovered 
quotation,  coming  in  a  work  written  at  latest  during  the 
reign  of  Hadrian,  is  fatal  to  the  favourite  hypothesis  of 
the  Tubingen  critics,  who  would  persuade  us  that  the 
Gospel  was  not  written  till  the  middle  of  the  second 
century.3 

The  conception  of  matter  as  part  of  the  divine  creation, 
and  therefore  not  necessarily  evil,  is  further  carried  out  in 
the  sequel  of  the  theory.     In  the  seed  of  the  world,  says 
Basilides,  there  is  a  threefold  sonship,  of  one  substance4 
with  the  non-existent  God,  produced  from  things  that  are 
not.     Of  this  sonship,  divided  into  three  parts,  one  part 
was  fine,  another  gross,  and  a  third  needing  purification.5 
The  first  of  these   immediately  sprang  up  to  the  non- 
existent God ;  the  second  strove  to  ascend,  but  was  only 
1  enabled  to  do  so  by  the  assistance  of  wings,  such  as  those 
\described  in  Plato's  Phsedrus,  and  which  Basilides  calls,  not 
Wings,  but  the  Holy  Spirit.     By  the  aid  of  this  wing  or 
spirit  the  second  sonship  ascended,  not  to  the  non-existent 

1  See  Zeller,  Phil,   der   Griechen      in  the  Stoical  philosophy;  and  it  is 
III.  1,  p.  146.  exactly  here   that  the    Platonic  in- 

2  Cf.  Uhlliorn,  Das  Basil.  Syst.       fluence  may  be  traced. 

p.  12,  andBaur  in  Theol.  Jahrb.  1856,  •  Bunsen,  Hippolytus  I.  p.  87. 

p.  145,   who  refers  especially  to  the  4  &p.oovffios. 

doctrine  of  Cleanthes  in  Stobseus,  Eel  5  The  words  ira.xvfj.cpes,  rb  Se  must 

i.  372.      Baiir  denies  that  there  is  any  clearly  be  supplied  from  the  summary 

trace  of  Platonism  in  Basilides.     Yet  (x.  14).   So  Duncker  and  Schneidewin 

he  admits  that  the  representation  of  read. 

the  Deity  as  OVK  &v  is  not  to  be  found 


LECT.  x.  BASILIDES.  151 

Deity,  but  to  the  next  inferior  place,  while  the  spirit  became 
separated  from  the  sonship  and  occupied  the  intermediate 
place  between  the  world  and  the  supermundane  region, 
being  placed  as  a  firmament  between  the  one  and  the 
other.1  The  third  sonship,  which  needed  purification, 
remained  in  the  mass  which  constituted  the  seed  of  the 
universe. 

In  this  strange  allegory  it  seems  natural  to  recognise 
a  very  embellished  form  of  the  Mosaic  account  of  the 
creation.  The  first  sonship  seems  to  indicate  that  portion 
of  finite  existence  which  is  purely  spiritual,  and  which, 
like  the  ideas  of  Plato,  is  in  immediate  connection  with 
and  subordination  to  the  ideal  good  which  is  above  all 
definite  existence.  In  the  second  or  grosser  sonship,  we 
seem  to  recognise  the  finer  portion  of  the  material  creation, 
the  '  waters  which  are  above  the  firmament,'  borne  up  by 
the  spirit,  which  is  here  identified  with  the  firmament 
and  the  atmosphere  pervading  the  sphere  below  the  firma- 
ment. The  third  sonship,  that  which  needs  purification, 
seems  to  represent  that  portion  of  the  spiritual  creation 
which  remains  on  earth  united  to  material  bodies,  from 
which  however  it  is  to  be  separated  hereafter.  Having 
thus  described  the  generation  of  the  supermundane  region 
and  the  firmament  by  which  it  is  separated  from  the 
world,  Basilides  next  proceeds  to  the  formation  of  the 
world  below  the  firmament.  'After  the  firmament  was 
formed,  there  sprang  forth  from  the  seed  of  the  world 
the  great  Euler,  the  head  of  the  world,  of  indestructible 
beauty  and  magnitude  and  power.  He  sprang  up  and 
ascended  as  high  as  the  firmament,  but  being  unable  to 


1  This    TruevfjLa     (j.ed6piov    (Hipp.  be  taken  from  Heb.  i.  14,  els 

vii.  23)  seems  to  answer  to  the  Sidtcovos  a.Koffre\\6/j.eva  :    and    here    also   the 

or  ministering  spirit,  cited  from  the  reference  is  in  the  first  instance  to  the 

teaching  of  Basilides  by  Clem.  Alex.  wind,  as  seems  to  be  also  the  inter- 

Excerpt.  Theod.  16,  p.  972.     Cf.  Baur  pretation  of  the  theory  as  stated  by 

in   Theol.  Jahrb.  1856,  p.  154.     The  Hippolytus.     Cf.  Alford  on  Heb.   i. 

expression  in  the  latter  case  seems  to  14. 


152  EGYPTIAN  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  x. 

ascend  higher,  and  being  ignorant  of  the  existence  of  the 
region  beyond,  he  became  the  wisest  and  most  powerful 
and  brightest  of  mundane  existences,  superior  to  all  beneath 
except  that  portion  of  the  divine  sonship  which  still 
remained  in  the  world.  Believing  himself  to  be  the 
highest  of  all  beings,  he  undertook  the  formation  of  a 
world  of  definite  existences.  First  he  begat  a  son  wiser 
and  more  powerful  than  himself,  whom  he  seated  at  his 
right  hand,  thus  forming  what  in  the  language  of  these 
philosophers  is  called  the  Ogdoad  ;  the  whole  celestial  or 
ethereal  creation  being  formed  by  the  great  Ruler  with  the 
aid  and  counsel  of  his  greater  son.  In  thus  acting,  the 
Euler  of  the  world  did  but  accomplish  unwittingly  the 
counsel  of  the  non-existent  God,  which  he  had  predeter- 
mined when  he  created  the  seed  of  the  universe.'  The 
relation  between  the  ruler  of  the  visible  world  and  his 
son  is  explained  by  Hippolytus  as  identical  with  Aristotle's 
distinction  between  the  body  and  the  soul,  the  latter  being 
the  EVT8\exsta  or  completeness  of  the  former,  by  which  it  is 
governed  and  acts.1 

The  great  Ruler  and  his  son  govern  the  whole  ethereal 
region  down  to  the  sphere  of  the  moon,  where  the  finer 
ether  is  succeeded  by  the  grosser  air.  Within  the  lower 
sphere  is  generated  in  like  manner  a  seeond  ruler  inferior 
to  the  first,  whose  region  is  called  the  Hebdomad,  and  who 
is  the  creator  and  governor  of  all  below  him,  commencing 
his  creation  like  the  first  ruler  with  the  generation  of  a 
son  greater  than  himself.  He  too  acts  unwittingly  in 
subordination  to  the  non-existent  Deity,  and  the  things 
that  are  produced  come  into  existence  according  to  the 
laws  first  ordained  in  the  seed  of  the  world.  The  great 
Archon,  the  ruler  of  the  Ogdoad,  we  are  further  told, 
bears  the  mystical  name  of  Abrasax,  or,  as  other  authors 

1  Cf.  .Baur  in  Theol.  Jahrb.  1856,  p.  148,  who  identifies  the  son  of  the 
Archon  with  the  world-soul. 


LECT.  x.  BASILIDES.  153 

give  it,  Abraxas,  and  rules  over  865  heavens,1  his  name 
containing  the  number  365,  according  to  the  numerical 
powers  of  the  Greek  letters  of  which  it  is  composed. 
Many  and  various  attempts  have  been  made  to  discover  a 
hidden  meaning  in  this  name  and  in  the  parts  of  which 
it  is  composed,2  but  probably  no  other  explanation  is 
needed  than  that  supplied  by  the  numerical  force  of  its 
letters.3  The  number  365  has  an  obvious  connection  with 
the  solar  year,  and  it  is  not  impossible  that  the  so-called 
365  heavens  may  have  been  a  mistaken  interpretation  of 
some  theory  connected  with  the  365  days  of  the  year,4  or 
they  may  merely  represent  the  apparent  diurnal  revolution 
of  the  sun.  But  be  this  as  it  may,  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  personified  Abraxas  was  meant  as  a  symbol  of 
the  sun.  The  name  is  to  be  met  with  on  numbers  of  stones 
which  still  exist,  and  which  are  known  generally  by  the 
name  of  Abraxas  gems,  though  the  name  is  often  incor- 
rectly given  to  other  remains  besides  those  to  which  it 
properly  belongs.  These  gems  confirm  the  explanation 
which  identifies  Abraxas  with  the  sun-god.5 

1  That  it  is  improbable  that  the  4  Something  of  this    sort   might 
doctrine  of  365  heavens  was  literally  naturally   arise   from    the   Egyptian 
held  by  Basilides,  see  Lardner,  Hist.  doctrine    of    a  guardian   genius   for 
of  Heretics  b.  ii.  c.  2.  sec.  4.    Hence  the  every  day  in  the  year.  Abraxas  would 
probability,  as  suggested  below,  that  then  be  the  head  of  all  these.      Cf. 
it  was  the  misrepresentation  of  some  Matter,  II.  p.  4.      Massuet  (Irenseus, 
theory  concerning  the  year.  Diss.  Prcev.  i.  §  116)  supposes  the  365 

2  For  some  of  these  explanations,  apparent  revolutions  of  the  sun  to  be 
see    Matter,    Hist,    du     Gnosticisme  meant. 

vol.  I.  p.  412  seq.  *  Cf.  King,  The  Gnostics  and  their 

3  See  Harvey's  Irenceus,  I.  p.  202,  Remains  p.  35,  78  seq.  Pseudo-Ter- 
where  a  similar  explanation  is  cited  tullian,  De  Prcescr.  c.  46,  and  Jerome, 
from  St.  Augustine,  De  Hares.  4.  The  Comm.  in  Amos  iii.  9  seq.,  say  that 
sum  is  as  follows  : —  Abraxas  in  Basilides  is  the  name  of 

a=      1  the  Supreme    God.      This   is   by  no 

j8  =     2  means  so  clear  in  the  representation  of 

p  =  100  Irenseus,  nor  in  Epiphanius  and  Theo- 

a=      1  doret,  who  follow  him.    Hilgenfeld  in 

|=   60  Theol.  Jahrb.  1856,  p.  118,  and  Baur, 

a=      1  ibid.   p.    157,    state     the    difference 

s  =  200  between  Hippolytus  and    the  other 

£65  authorities  too   generally.      For    an 


154  EGYPTIAN  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  x. 

The  second  ruler,  the  Lord  of  the  Hebdomad,  is  ex- 
pressly identified  with  the  God  of  the  Jews  who  appeared 
to  Moses  in  the  burning  bush.  As  the  number  365  is 
connected  with  the  solar  year,  we  are  naturally  tempted 
to  suppose  a  connection  between  the  number  seven  and 
the  four  phases  of  the  moon,  within  whose  sphere  the 
Hebdomad  is  placed,  as  well  as  with  the  seven  days  of 
creation  and  the  consequent  institution  of  the  week  of 
seven  days.  It  is  also  probable  that  the  Hebdomad  and 
the  Ogdoad  contain  an  allusion  to  the  seven  spheres  of  the 
planets,  and  the  eighth  of  the  fixed  stars ; 1  but  without 
attempting  to  fix  minutely  the  details  of  these  allusions, 
we  may  at  least  conclude  in  general  that  this  portion  of 
the  cosmogony  of  Basilides  contains  an  allegorical  appli- 
cation of  the  scriptural  account  of  the  creation  as  symbo- 
lical of  theories  of  astronomy.  Such  is  a  brief  outline  of  the 
creation  of  the  world  according  to  the  theory  of  Basilides. 

We  have  next  to  consider  his  account  of  its  redemp- 
tion. This  consists  in  the  lifting  up  to  God  of  that  third 
class  of  sonship  which  was  described  in  the  beginning  as 
'needing  purification.  In  this  third  sonship  it  is  easy  to 
recognise  the  Gnostic  distinction  of  the  Trvevpari/coi  or 
spiritual  persons,  that  portion  of  mankind  who  are  capable 
of  attaining  to  knowledge,  but  who  are  compelled  for  a 
time  to  reside  in  the  material  world  imprisoned  in  material 
bodies,  and  having  their  spiritual  part  clogged  and  hin- 
dered by  bodily  senses  and  passions.  The  means  of  their 
deliverance  is  the  Gospel,  which  is  characteristically  de- 
fined as  17  TWJ>  vTrepKocr/jLicw  tyvaxiis*  the  knowledge  of  those 


account  of  the  so-called  Abraxas  gems,  the  Ogdoad  represents  the  sum  of  all 

many    of    which    are    heathen,    see  the  spheres,  corresponding  in  number 

Lardner,  Hist,  of  Heretics  b.  ii.  c.  2,  to  those  of  Plato,  Resp.  x.  p.  616.    Cf. 

sect.  22.  Baur  in  Theol.  Jahrb.  1856,  p.  158. 

1  The    Hebdomad    may  perhaps  2  Hippol.     vii.      27      (p.      376, 

represent  the  sublunar  sphere,  while  Duncker). 


LECT  x.  BASILIDES.  155 

Divine  things  which  are  above  the  world,  in  the  region  of 
the  non-existent  God  and  of  the  spiritual  offspring  who 
have  already  ascended  to  him.  It  is  the  need  of  this 
deliverance  which  is  expressed  in  the  language  of  St.  Paul, 
'The  whole  creation  groaneth  and  travaileth  in  pain 
together,  waiting  for  the  manifestation  of  the  sons  of 
God  ; ' l  and  by  the  sons  of  God,  says  Basilides,  are  meant 
the  spiritual  men  who  are  left  here  to  arrange  and 
mould  and  rectify  and  complete  those  souls  which  are 
constituted  by  nature  to  remain  below  in  this  region.  The 
former  state  of  the  world  may  be  divided  into  two  periods. 
In  the  first,  as  it  is  written,  '  Sin  reigned  from  Adam  to 
Moses  ; ' 2  that  is  to  say,  the  great  Archon,  the  ruler  of  the 
Ogdoad,  whose  name  is  unspeakable,  had  his  dominion, 
and  believed  himself  to  be  the  only  God,  for  all  above  him 
was  hidden.  After  this  came  the  government  of  the 
second  Archon,  the  ruler  of  the  Hebdomad,  who  is  the  God 
who  revealed  himself  to  Moses  as  being  the  God  of 
Abraham  and  of  Isaac  and  of  Jacob,  but  as  not  having 
revealed  to  them  the  unspeakable  name  of  the  first  Kuler. 
From  the  inspiration  of  this  Archon  spoke  the  prophets 
who  lived  before  the  time  of  the  Saviour.  Then  came  the 
third  period,  when  the  sons  of  God  should  be  revealed, 
when  the  Gospel  came  into  the  world,  passing  through 
every  principality  and  power  and  dominion  and  every 


1  Hippol.  vii.  25.     It  will  be  seen  rbi>   Ba(n\ei8?jp •      /ca0b    «al    CTT!    rrjs 

that  this  quotation  is  a  combination  4K\dyrls  TUTTOVGIV  avr^i>,  TO. 

of  two   verses   of  Romans   viii,   the  avairofifiKTtas      evplffKovarav 

first  part   from  ver.  22,  the   second  voi\riK^.     Here  again  the  e'/cAefcrbs  is 

fromver.  19.    The  Trvevfiari^s  of  Ba-  from     Bom.     viii.    33,      the    whole 

silides,  as  described  in  the  extract  cited  chapter  being  pressed  to  the  support 

by   Hippolytus,   is   the  same  as  the  of  the   theory.     Cf.  Baur   in    Tkeol, 

person  described  by  Clement,  Strom.  Jahrb.  1856,  p.  152  seq. 

T.  1  (p.  645  Potter)  <t>v<Tei  ITHTTOV  KO!  2  Rom.   v.    14.      St.    Paul  how- 

&cA.e/cT<?D  OVTOS,  us  Eaffi\eiSijs  j/o/xf£«,  ever  says  tfia<rl\evarsv  d  Qd.va.Tos,  not 

and    Strom,  ii.  3    (p.   433)     tvTavQa  f)  a 
Tjjovvrai   r^v  irianv   ot 


156  EGYPTIAN  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  x. 

name  that  is  named.1  It  did  not  indeed  come  down,  for 
nothing  which  is  in  the  region  above  can  quit  the  presence 
of  God  and  descend,  but  it  kindled  the  intellects  which 
rose  to  it  from  below,  as  the  Indian  naphtha  attracts  fire 
from  a  distance.  First,  the  great  Archon  of  the  Ogdoad 
was  illuminated  by  means  of  his  son,  and  learned  that  he 
was  not  the  Supreme  God,  and  he  feared  and  confessed 
his  sin  in  having  magnified  himself,  as  it  is  written,  '  The 
fear  of  the  Lord  is  the  beginning  of  wisdom.' 2  From  the 
first  Archon  and  his  kingdom  the  light  of  the  Gospel  was 
communicated  to  the  second  Archon  with  similar  results  ; 
and  after  the  whole  of  his  dominion  had  been  illuminated, 
the  light  came  down  from  the  Hebdomad  to  the  earth  and 
enlightened  Jesus  the  son  of  Mary.  From  that  time  the 
constitution  of  the  world  is  to  continue  till  the  remaining 
sons  of  God  have  been  formed  after  the  likeness  of  Jesus, 
and  have  been  purified  and  enabled  to  ascend  on  high. 
When  this  ascension  is  completed,  God  shall  bring  upon 
the  whole  world  the  great  ignorance,  that  all  things  may 
remain  in  the  place  assigned  to  them  by  nature,  and 
desire  nothing  beyond.  All  souls  which  are  designed  by 
nature  for  the  world,  and  not  for  the  region  above  the 
world,  from  the  Archon  of  the  Ogdoad  downwards,  shall  be 
involved  in  utter  ignorance  of  all  that  is  above  them,  that 
thus  they  may  have  no  sense  of  deficiency  or  pain  of 
desire ;  and  thus  will  be  brought  about  the  restoration  of  all 
things  which  in  the  beginning  were  established  in  the  seed 
of  the  universe,  and  shall  be  restored  in  their  own  season. 

1  An  adaptation  of  Ephes.  i.  21.  redemption   as    a  separation   of  the 

2  Cf.    Clem.   Alex.    Strom,     ii.    8  spiritual  element.    Indeed  Hippolytus 
(p.  448).    Clement  uses  the  expression  uses  the  same  language,  vii.  27   'iva 
apx^]vy€v6iJ.fVQi>  <rofyia.s  (^uA.o/cptj'TjTt/ojs  airapx^l     TTJS    (pv^oKpivficrfci}?    yevrjTai 
re  Kal  Sta/cpiTi/cTjs  Kai  TeAecoTt/cyjy  ical  TU>V  (rvyK^xv^ivuv  6  'Ir)ffovs  K.r.\.     Cf. 
airo/caTao-TOTi/cTjs,  which  ^uite  agrees  Uhlhorn,  Das  Bas.  Syst.  p.  49  ;    Baur 
with  the  representation  of  Hippolytus,  in  Theol.  Jahrb.  1856,  p.  151. 
according  to  which  Basilides  regarded 


LECT.  x.  BASILIDES.  157 

In  addition  to  this  theory  of  the  generation  and 
restoration  of  the  universe,  Hippolytus  tells  us  that  the 
disciples  of  Basilides  accepted  the  Gospel  narrative  of  the 
life  of  Jesus,  and  admitted  the  reality  of  his  sufferings, 
which  however,  they  said,  were  endured  for  no  other 
purpose  than  the  separation  of  the  spiritual  element  in 
the  universe  from  the  inferior  things  which  were  mingled 
with  it.  Of  that  separation  Jesus  himself  was  the  first- 
fruits.  His  bodily  nature  suffered  and  was  resolved  into 
formlessness.  The  several  constituents  of  his  higher 
nature  ascended  each  to  its  cognate  region ;  the  psychical 
to  the  domain  of  the  great  Archon ;  the  spiritual  to  the 
intermediate  region  of  the  spirit ;  the  divine  to  the  super- 
mundane abode  of  the  Supreme  God  and  his  true  sons. 
From  this  statement  of  Hippolytus,  which  is  indirectly 
confirmed  by  Clement  of  Alexandria,1  it  appears  that 
Basilides  did  not  adopt  the  Docetic  views  of  the  person  of 
Jesus  which  were  attributed  to  him  (or  perhaps  rather  to 
his  followers)  by  Irenseus  and  others.2  Especially  that 
strange  and  profane  fancy,  that  Simon  of  Gyrene  was 
changed  into  the  likeness  of  Jesus  and  suffered  in  his 
stead,  while  Jesus,  in  the  form  of  Simon,  stood  by  and 
laughed  at  his  enemies,  could  have  had  no  place  in  the 
original  teaching  of  Basilides,  though  it  may  have  been 
engrafted  on  his  system  by  some  of  its  later  exponents. 

A  comparison  of  the  notices  of  Hippolytus  with  those 
of  Clement  will  also  enable  us  to  correct  another  erroneous 
impression  which  has  generally  prevailed  concerning  the 
teaching  of  Basilides,  namely,  that  he  was  one  of  those 

1  Strom,   iv.    12   (p.  600),  where  2  Irenseus,  i.  24.  4.     Cf.  Epiphan. 

Basilides  is  represented  as  speaking  H&r.  xxiv.  3  ;  Theodoret,  Hcer.  Fab. 

of  the  sufferings  of  Jesus,  and  likens  i.  4.  So  also  Tertullian,  De  Ees.  Cam. 

them  to  those  of  the  infant,  who  has  c.  2 ;  and  Pseudo-Tertull.  De  Prcescr. 

committed  no  actual  sin,  yet  suffers,  c.  46.   Cf.  Uhlhorn,  p.  50  ;  Matter,  II. 

exwv  eV  eauTfp  rb  a/j.apTi]TiK6^.        Cf.  p.  22. 
Uhlhorn,  Das  Bas.  Syst.  p.  43. 


158  EGYPTIAN  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  x. 

who  accounted  for  the  existence  of  evil  by  the  Persian 
hypothesis  of  two  independent  principles.1  A  passage 
in  Clement,  which  was  once  supposed  to  give  some  sup- 
port to  this  view,  receives  quite  a  different  interpretation 
when  examined  by  the  light  of  the  new  information 
furnished  by  Hippolytus.  Basilides  and  his  followers, 
according  to  Clement,  called  the  passions  of  man  irpocr- 
apTrjpara,  or  appendages,  and  regarded  them  as  spirits 
appended  to  the  rational  soul  in  consequence  of  a  certain 
disturbance  and  confusion  of  principles  (/card  TWO,  rdpa^ov 
KOI  vv^yyoiv  dp%LKr]v)  ;2  with  these  were  connected  other 
spurious  spirits  of  different  natures,  such  as  those  of 
the  wolf,  the  ape,  the  lion,  or  the  goat,  or  even  of  plants 
and  minerals,  which  form  desires  in  the  soul  of  a  similar 
kind.3  We  are  reminded  of  Plato's  figurative  representa- 
tion of  the  appetitive  portion  of  the  soul  as  a  many-headed 
monster,  and  of  the  shells  and  seaweed  clinging  round  the 
divine  form  of  the  sea-god  Glaucus ; 4  but  there  is  nothing 
in  the  passage  to  suggest  a  dualistic  origin  of  evil,  unless 
it  be  in  the  words  Kara  avy^yo-iv  apxifcrjv,  which  have 
often  been  explained  as  implying  a  conflict  between  the 
good  and  evil  principle,  but  which  the  exposition  of 
Hippolytus,  who  uses  the  same  term,  clearly  shows  to  be 
employed  in  their  more  natural  sense  as  denoting  a  mix- 
ture of  elements,  spiritual  and  material.  The  only 


1  This    has    been   maintained  by  necessity    based   on   the   doctrine   is 
Neander,  Kitter,    Baur  (in  his    Chr.  also    Platonic.      The    rational    soul 
Gnosis,  subsequently  dropped  in  his  must  contend  with  and  overcome  the 
later    exposition),   and    recently   by  material  accretions. 

Hilgenfeld  in  Theol.  Jahrb.  1856.  4  Hippol.  vii.  27  (p.  244  Miller, 

2  Clem.      Alex.      Strom,     ii.     20  378  Duncker)  '6\-n  yap  avrcav  y   \nr6- 
(p.    488,  Potter).     On   this   passage,  0e<ns  trvy^vtra  oiovel  •jrav<rireplu.ias  Kal 
see    Baur     in    Theol.    Jahrb.     1856,  <pv\oKpivf}(ris  KOL\    o.TTOKo.ra.(na(fis  T£>V 
p.  152.  ff\ryK^xv^v<av     fls    r&     oifceTa.        Cf. 

3  Plato,  Eesp.  ix.  p.  588,  x.  p.  611.  Uhlhorn,  Das  JBasilidianische  System 
The   argument   of    Isidore    recorded  p.  44;     Baur  in  Theol.  Jahrb.  1856, 
by   Clement    against    the     plea     of  p.  152. 


LECT.  x.  BASILIDES.  159 

evidence  which  exists,  for  distinctly  charging  Basilides 
with  dualism,  is  found  in  a  work,  the  authority  of  which 
has  been  much  disputed,1  the  extant  Latin  translation  of 
a  lost  original,2  purporting  to  be  the  account  of  a  dis- 
cussion between  the  Persian  Manes  and  Archelaus,  Bishop 
of  Caschar  in  Mesopotamia.  In  that  work  Basilides  is 
named  as  a  precursor  of  the  Manichean  doctrine,  and  a 
fragment  is  quoted  from  a  writing  of  his,  in  which  he 
maintains  the  doctrine  of  certain  barbarians  concerning 
two  eternal  principles.  But  the  fragment  as  quoted  does 
not  show  whether  Basilides  accepted  this  doctrine ;  and 
the  assertion  that  he  does  so  rests  only  on  the  very 
doubtful  authority  of  the  writer  by  whom  he  is  quoted, 
and  is  too  much  at  variance  with  what  we  'know  of  his 
philosophy  from  other  sources  to  have  any  claim  to 
acceptance.3 

In  fact,  the  philosophy  of  Basilides,  as  described  in  our 
previous  notice,  is  of  all  Gnostic  systems  the  one  which 
least  requires  or  admits  of  such  a  hypothesis.  In  its 
external  character  it  seems  to  be  an  allegorical  represen- 
tation of  the  religious  progress  of  the  world,  from  Sabaism 
to  Judaism,  and  from  Judaism  to  Christianity ;  the  first 
stage  being  represented  by  the  reign  of  Abraxas,  the  Sun- 
God,  from  Adam  to  Moses  ;  the  second  by  the  revelation  of 
the  Archon  of  the  Hebdomad  to  the  Hebrew  lawgiver ;  the 
third  by  the  period  of  purification  introduced  by  the 
Gospel.  In  its  internal  or  philosophical  character,  it  is  a 
pantheistic  representation  of  the  evolutions  of  the  world 
in  a  series  of  necessary  developments,  in  which,  as  in  all 
systems  conceived  in  a  pantheistic  spirit,  free-will  and 

1  As  by  Beausobre,  Histoire  de  Syriac;  thence  translated  and  epito- 

Manickee  I.  c.  12,  13,  and  by  Milman,  mised  in  Greek,  and  thence  into  Latin. 
Hist,  of  Christianity  II.  p.  272.  Cf.  3  Cf.  Uhlhorn,  Das  Bas.  Syet. 

Kouth,  Bel.  Sacr.  V.  p.  23.  p.  53. 

2  It   was    originally    written    in 


160  EGYPTIAN  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  x. 

moral  guilt  have  no  place,1  and  the  only  form  of  evil 
admitted  is  that  of  a  mere  temporary  disturbance  of  the 
natural  position  of  things ;  the  spiritual  being  mingled 
with  the  material  instead  of  being  exalted  above  it.2 

With  the  views  which  Basilides  entertained  of  the 
nature  o  fevil  and  of  the  relation  of  the  world  to  God, 
there  could  be  no  need  of  the  hypothesis  adopted  in  other 
Gnostic  systems  of  a  series  of  emanations  or  intermediate 
beings  between  God  and  the  world,  so  disposed  as  to  make 
the  creation  of  the  material  universe  the  work  of  an 
inferior  and  imperfect  agent;  and  accordingly,  in  the 
extract  above  cited,  we  find  Basilides  expressly  repudiating 
the  theory  of  creation  by  emanations,  as  well  as  that  of 
an  eternally  pre- existent  matter.  Nevertheless,  in  the 
commonly-received  account  of  his  doctrine  as  given  by 
Irenseus  and  those  who  have  followed  his  statements,  we 
find  this  doctrine  expressly  ascribed  to  Basilides.  '  He 
sets  forth,'  says  Irenseus,  '  that  from  the  unborn  Father 
sprang  NoOs,  and  from  this  again  Aoyos,  from  Aoyoy, 
,  from  <&p6vr)(Ti9,  2o<£ua  and  Avvajus,  and  from 
and  2-o^t'a,  powers  and  principalities  and  angels, 
whom  he  calls  the  first,  and  by  whom  the  first  heaven  was 
made.  From  these  by  emanation  were  derived  others 
who  made  a  second  heaven,  similar  to  the  first ;  and  in 
like  manner,  by  emanation  from  these,  others  were  made, 
the  counterparts  of  those  above  them,  and  these  formed  a 
third  heaven ;  and  from  the  third  again  in  downward 
succession  a  fourth;  and  in  succession  after  this  manner 
they  say  that  other  principalities  and  angels  were  made, 
and  heavens  to  the  number  of  365.  Wherefore  the  year 

1  Clement  expressly  charges  Basi-  2  Cf.   Uhlhorn,    Das  Bas.     Syst. 

lides  with  excluding  free-will,  Strom.  p.   35;  Baur  in  Theol.  Jahrb.   1856, 

ii.  3,  p.  434.     Cf.  Uhlhorn,  Das  Bas.  p.  142. 
Syst.  p.  38. 


LECT.  x.  BASILIDES.  161 

contains  so  many  days,  according  to  the  number  of  the 
heavens.1 

The  theory  as  here  exhibited  is  probably  a  later  modi- 
fication of  the  original  teaching  of  Basilides,  under  the 
influence  of  the  school  of  Yalentinus.2  But  though  it  is 
scarcely  possible  that  Basilides  himself  could  have  held 
the  theory  in  the  form  in  which  it  is  here  attributed  to 
him,  it  is  by  no  means  improbable  that  he  may  have  pre- 
pared the  way  for  it,  by  recognising  something  like  the 
personification  of  spiritual  attributes  which  head  the 
above  list,  though  not  in  the  form  of  successive  emana- 
tions. The  resemblance  which  has  been  already  noticed 
between  the  non-existent  Deity  of  Basilides  and  the  ideal 
Good  of  Plato  renders  it  probable  that  Basilides,  like  Plato, 
may  have  connected  his  absolute  first  principle  with  a 
subordinate  intelligible  world  of  ideas,  though  these 
would  form  but  minor  details  in  his  system,  and  could 
not  be  interposed  as  successive  links  in  the  world  of 
creation.3  This  supposition  receives  some  support  from 
a  brief  notice  in  Clement  of  Alexandria,  who  speaks  of 
Basilides  as  recognising  an  Ogdoad  of  which  two  of  the 
members  were  Justice  and  her  daughter  Peace.4  If  we 
add  these  to  the  five  intellectual  qualities  personified  in 
the  list  of  Irenseus,  and  omit  the  creative  powers  and 
angels  which  seem  to  belong  to  a  later  form  of  the  theory, 
we  shall  have,  with  the  addition  of  the  absolute  first  prin- 

1  Irenseus,  i.  24.  3.     Cf.  Epiphan.  refer  the  name  Abraxas  to  the  latter). 
HfBr.  xxiv.   1;  Theodoret,  Hcer.  Fab.  The  Trava-ireputa  being  cut  off  with  the 
i.  4.  first  part  of  the  system,  a  theory  of 

2  Cf.    Uhlhorn,    Das    Sas.    Syst.  emanation  became  necessary,  and  the 
p.  58,  60.      The  change  probably  was  dualistic  assumption  of   a   primitive 
made    by    cutting    off    the    ou/c   &v  matter   can  come   in.      Cf.   Baur   in 
e«6s,  an  abstraction  which  few  could  Theol.  Jahrb.  1856,  p.  158. 

follow,  and  with  it  all  the  virfpi<6<T[j.ia.  8  Cf.   Uhlhorn,   Das   Sag.     Syst. 

The  first  Archon  will  then  take  the  p.  48. 

place   of  the   Supreme   God    (which  4  Strom,  iv.  25  (p.  637). 

explains  the  statement  of  those  who 


162  EGYPTIAN  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  x. 

ciple,  a  spiritual  Ogdoad  bearing  considerable  resemblance 
to  the  ideas  of  Plato.1 

It  was  natural,  according  to  the  distinction  drawn  by 
Basilides  between  the  spiritual  and  the  material  and  his 
theory  of  redemption  as  a  separation  of  the  former 
from  the  latter,  that  he  should  deny  the  resurrection 
of  the  body.2  But  he  is  also  said  to  have  maintained 
the  doctrine  of  a  transmigration  of  souls  from  one  body 
to  another,3  which,  though  not  a  natural  consequence 
of  his  chief  doctrine,  is  not  inconsistent  with  it,  if  we 
suppose  the  several  transmigrations  to  be  admitted, 
as  in  Plato,4  as  steps  in  the  purification  of  the  soul. 
Besides  this  Pythagorean  doctrine,  Basilides  is  also  said 
to  have  required  of  his  followers  a  probation  of  five  years 
of  silence,5  a  rule  which  might  probably  have  been  adopted 
also  from  the  Pythagorean  philosophy,  which  at  this  time 
was  being  resuscitated  in  Alexandria.6  Another  of  the 
minor  details  of  the  teaching  of  Basilides  as  recorded  by 
Irenseus  has  received  a  fuller  explanation  from  the  dis- 
covery of  the  work  of  his  disciple  Hippolytus.  According 
to  Irenseus  and  Theodoret,  the  disciples  of  Basilides  gave 
to  the  Saviour  of  the  world  the  strange  title  of  Caulacau* 
The  meaning  of  this  term,  which  had  been  partly  ex- 
plained by  Epiphanius,8  is  more  fully  illustrated  by 

1  This  class  of  spiritual  ideas  will       E.  iv.  7. 

correspond  to  what  Hippolytus  de-  6  Cf.  Matter  II.  p.  1 8. 

scribes    as    the    first    MOTTJS,    which  7  Irenseus,    i.   24.  5;    Theodoret, 

ascended  immediately  to  the  Father.  Hcer.   Fab.  i.  4.      The    text   of    the 

Cf.  Jakobi  in  Herzog,  Art. «  Basilides,'  former,  which  is  obviously  corrupt, 

I.  p.  709.  may    be     corrected    by    the     latter. 

2  Irenseus,  i.  24.  5.  Epiphan.   Har.  xxv.  3   attributes   a 

3  Origen   in  Rom.  lib.  v.  ( Opera  similar  doctrine  to  the  Nicolaitans. 
A7L  p.  336,  Lommatzsch).    Cf.  Clem.  8  Hcer.  xxv.   4,   where   the   three 
Alex.    Strom,    iv.    12  (p.    601),  and  words       /cauAa/cav,      (rauAacrau,     and 
Matter,    Hist,    du    Gnosticisme     II.  fapffd/j.,  are    traced  to  their    origin, 
p.  2.  though  their  significance  in  the  Gnostic 

4  Phadrus  pp.  248,  249.  teaching  is  not  explained. 
s  Agrippa    Castor   in   Euseb.  H. 


LECT.  x.  BASILIDES.  163 

Hippolytus,  who  however  attributes  it,  not  to  the  Basili- 
deans,  but  to  the  Ophites.  He  refers  to  these  heretics 
the  use  of  these  mystical  words,  Kav\aKav,  <rav\acrav,  and 
&r)a-dp ; l  the  first  as  meaning  the  heavenly,  spiritual  man ; 
the  second,  the  mortal  man  upon  earth ;  the  third,  the 
spirit  raised  by  the  Gnostic  doctrine  from  earth  to 
heaven.2  The  words  as  thus  given  represent  in  a  com- 
plete form  the  original  Hebrew  of  Isaiah  xxviii.  10,  pre- 
cept upon  precept,  line  upon  line,  here  a  little.3  The 
celestial  man  was  called  line  upon  line,  or  perhaps  rather, 
as  in  the  LXX  version,  hope  upon  hope ;  the  earthly  man 
was  precept  upon  precept ;  while  the  illuminated  Gnostics, 
the  chosen  few,  were  here  a  little.*  This  classification, 
though  quite  in  accordance  with  the  general  spirit  of 
Gnosticism,  has  little  connection  with  the  peculiar  theory 
of  Basilides,  and  may  have  been  one  of  the  later  features 
of  the  school,  introduced  by  his  followers. 

Irenseus  charges  the  disciples  of  Basilides  with  gross 
immorality  of  life;5  but  the  testimony  of  Clement  of 
Alexandria  seems  to  show  that  the  teaching  of  Basilides 
himself,  as  well  as  of  his  son  Isidorus,  was  of  a  very  different 
character.6  Yet  as  Clement  expressly  says  that  he  cites 
their  teaching  to  refute  those  Basilideans  who  assumed  a 
licence  not  permitted  by  their  first  teachers,  we  may  con- 
clude that  there  was  some  foundation  for  the  charge  as 
regards  the  later  members  of  the  sect.  It  is  not  impro- 
bable that  the  distinction,  on  which  so  much  of  the  teach- 

1  Hippol.  Eef.  Hear.  v.  8.  4  Cf.  Harvey's  Irenaus  I.  p.  201. 

2  The     last     word     is    explained  5  Irenseus,  i.  2-4.  5. 

to   mean    rov  errl    TO  &va)  peixravros  6  Clem.     Alex.     Strom,     iii.      1. 

'lopSai/ou.      But  in  v.  7  the  backward  Epiphanius,  H<er.  xxxii.  4,  cites  the 

flow  of  the  Jordan  is  interpreted  as  same   passage  from  Isidorus  with  a 

signifying  the   Tn/cvyucm/crj   yweffis  of  very  immoral  interpretation  ;  but  the 

the  Grnostic.     Cf.  Harvey  s  Iren&usl.  context  of  Clement  shows  that  this 

p.  201.  is  not  the  true   meaning.     See  also 

'yt  1$b  1J2  IJfi?  IV.  Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  iv.  12  (p.  600). 

.    M2 


164  EGYPTIAN  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  x. 

ing  of  Basilides  was  based,  between  his  own  followers  as 
the  elect,  and  the  rest  of  mankind  as  carnal,  might  foster 
the  delusion  that  these  privileged  persons  were  not  bound 
by  the  same  laws  as  other  men ;  *  though  it  was  far  from 
the  intention  of  the  teacher  to  inculcate  this  licentious 
doctrine.  In  one  respect  however  the  practice  of 
Basilides  himself  gave  just  offence  to  Christian  writers, 
in  that  he  taught  that  it  was  lawful  to  partake  of  sacrifices 
to  idols  and  to  deny  the  faith  in  time  of  persecution.2 

We  cannot  trace  in  Basilides  any  of  that  hostility  to 
the  Jewish  religion  and  the  God  of  the  Jews  which  dis- 
tinguished some  of  the  Gnostic  sects.  On  the  contrary, 
he  seems  to  have  regarded  Judaism  as  a  necessary  stage 
in  the  development  and  education  of  the  world ;  and  he 
appears  to  have  received  and  made  use  of  the  Jewish 
Scriptures,  at  least  in  part,  as  well  as  the  New  Testament, 
though  he  added  to  these  sacred  books  certain  apocryphal 
writings  by  pretended  prophets  of  his  own,  called  Barcabbas 
and  Barcoph  or  Parchor,  of  which  it  is  difficult  to  say 
whether  they  were  real  books  of  Eastern  theosophy  or 
forgeries  of  his  own  composition. 

The  system  of  Basilides  is  of  all  the  Gnostic  systems 
the  one  which  least  recognises  any  break  or  distinction 
between  the  Christian  revelation  and  the  other  religions 
of  the  world,  heathen  or  Jewish.  His  leading  thought  is 
the  continuity  of  the  world's  development,  the  gradual 
purification  and  enlightenment,  we  might  almost  say  in 
modern  language,  the  education  of  the  world,  by  means  of 
a  progressive  series  of  movements,  succeeding  to  one 
another  by  a  fixed  law  of  evolution.  But  while  the 
system  thus  gains  in  philosophical  unity,  it  loses  in  moral 

1  ws  tfroi  ex6vr<av  Qovviav  KO.}  rov  2  Agrippa  Castor  in  Euseb.  H.  E. 

ojuupTeTy    Sto  T^V    re\fi4r7jra,  Clem.       iv.  7.     Cf.  Irenaeus,  i,  24. 
Alex.  Strom,  iii.  1. 


LECT.  x.  BASILIDES.  165 

and  religious  significance.  No  place  is  left  for  the  special 
providence  of  God,  nor  for  the  freewill  of  man.  The 
scheme  almost  approaches  to  a  Stoical  pantheism,  and 
quite  to  a  Stoical  fatalism.  The  Supreme  God  is  an  im- 
personal being,  capable  of  no  religious  relation  to  man, 
and  introduced  for  no  other  purpose  than  to  give  the  first 
impulse  to  the  mechanical  movement  of  the  world's 
self-development;  even  this  amount  of  activity  being 
introduced  as  it  were  per  saltum,  by  a  gratuitous  and  in- 
consistent assumption.  As  a  mere  system  of  metaphysics 
the  theory  of  Basilides  contains  the  nearest  approach  to 
the  conception  of  a  logical  philosophy  of  the  absolute 
which  the  history  of  ancient  thought  can  furnish,  almost 
rivalling  that  of  Hegel  in  modern  times ;  but  in  the  same 
degree  in  which  it  elevates  God  to  the  position  of  an 
absolute  first  principle,  it  strips  Him  of  those  attributes 
which  alone  can  make  Him  the  object  of  moral  obedience 
or  religious  worship. 


166  EGYPTIAN  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  xi. 


LECTURE  XL 

EGYPTIAN    GNOSTICISM — VALENTINUS    AND    THE 
VALENTINIANS. 

THE  Egyptian  Gnosticism  attained  to  its  fullest  develop- 
ment and  its  greatest  popularity  in  the  system  of  Valen- 
tinus, who,  while  building  on  the  same  foundations,  and 
for  the  most  part  with  the  same  materials,  as  his  prede- 
cessor Basilides,  obtained  -for  his  philosophy  a  more 
general  reception  by  exhibiting  it  in  the  form  of  poetical 
personifications  instead  of  metaphysical  abstractions. 
Valentinus  is  reported,  though  not  upon  very  certain 
testimony,  to  have  been  a  native  of  Egypt,  and  to  have 
been  educated  at  Alexandria,  where  he  received  instruc- 
tion in  Greek  literature.1  From  Egypt  he  came  to  Rome 
during  the  pontificate  of  Hyginus,  and  remained  there 
during  that  of  Pius,  and  until  the  succession  of  Anicetus ; 2 
a  period  which  may  be  roughly  stated  as  extending  from 
A.D.  140  to  157  or  later.3  Subsequently  he  is  said  to 
have  retired  to  Cyprus,  and  there  to  have  openly  pro- 
claimed his  secession  from  the  Church,  having  previously 
been  in  at  least  a  nominal  communion.4  According  to 

1  Epiphan.   Hcer.  xxxi.     Epipha-  his  system. 

nius  confesses  that  the  earlier  writers  2  Irenaeus,  iii.  4  ;   Euseb.  H.  E. 

give  no  account  of  the  birthplace  of  iv.  11. 

Valentinus,  and  that  he  merely  follows  3  Hyginus  became  Pope  A.D.  139  ; 

tradition.     His  Greek  training  how-  Pius  A.D.  142;  Anicetus  A.D.  157. 

ever  is  manifest  from  the  character  of  4  Epiph.  Hcer.  xxxi.  7. 


LECT.  XL     VALENTINUS  AND  THE  VALENTINIANS.        167 

Tertullian,  his  open  secession  was  occasioned  by  disap- 
pointment in  the  hope  of  succeeding  to  a  bishopric.1 

The  heresy  of  Valentinus  has  an  especial  interest  for 
us,  as  having,  through  one  of  its  branches,  given  occasion 
to  the  great  work  of  Irenseus  in  opposition  to  Gnosticism, 
'  The  Refutation  and  Overthrow  of  Knowledge  falsely 
so  called.'2  The  branch  of  the  Valentinians  which  had 
attained  to  the  greatest  celebrity  at  this  time,  and  whose 
tenets  are  directly  described  by  Irenseus  in  the  first  nine 
chapters  of  his  work,  seems  to  have  been  that  founded  by 
Ptolemseus,  a  disciple  of  Valentinus,3  whose  variations 
from  the  teaching  of  his  master  we  shall  have  to  consider 
hereafter ;  but  the  doctrines  of  Yalentinus  himself,  as  well 
as  of  other  schools  of  Gnosticism,  are  also  noticed  in 
detail  in  the  course  of  the  work.  The  main  principles  of 
the  system  remain  in  the  subsequent  schools  as  they  were 
invented  by  the  master,  varying  only  in  some  subordinate 
details. 

The  system  of  Valentinus  is  an  eclecticism  derived 
from  various  sources,  but  we  may  trace  in  it  the  influence 
especially  of  three  leading  ideas.  The  first,  which  is 
derived  from  the  Platonic  philosophy,  is  that  which 
considers  the  higher  existences  of  the  terrestrial  world 4 
as  having  their  superior  and  more  real  counterparts  in 
the  celestial  world,  the  ideal  substances  being  but  imper- 
fectly reflected  in  their  earthly  shadows.5  The  second, 
which  is  derived  in  a  modified  form  from  the  pantheistic 

1  Tertull.  Adv.  Valent.  c.  4.  sect. 

2  'EAe'7%ou     Kal     avarpoTrris     rris  *  According  to  the  original  concep- 
tf/euSwi/VjUoy  yvdxrecas,  Euseb.  H.  E.  v.  tion  of  Plato  himself,  as  represented 
7.    That  this  was  the  title  adopted  by  by  the  youthful  Socrates  in  the  Par- 
Irenseus  himself,   see    Harvey's   Ire-  menides,   p.    130,  where   the    higher 
nceus  I.  p.  clxiii.  class  of  existences  only  are  regarded 

3  See  Massuet,  Diss.  Prtev.  in  Iren.  as  having  ideal  counterparts. 
i.  §  83.      The  Ptolemaeans  described  5   Cf.    Baur,    Die     Chr.     Gnosis 

subsequently  by  Irenaeus,  i.  12,  seem  p.  124. 
to  have  been  a  later  perversion  of  the 


168  EGYPTIAN  GNOSTICISM:  LEOT.  xi. 

philosophy  of  India,  is  that  which  regards  the  origin  of 
material  existence  as  due  to  an  error,  or  fall,  or  degrada- 
tion of  some  higher  mode  of  being  ;  material  existence,  if 
not  relative  existence  in  general,  being  regarded  as  a 
transient  blot  on  the  perfection  of  the  absolute.1  The 
third,  derived  from  the  Judaism  of  Alexandria,  is  that 
which  attributes  the  creation  of  the  world,  notwithstand- 
ing its  deterioration  from  a  higher  excellence,  as  due  to 
the  Wisdom  of  God,  an  attribute  which  appears  in  a 
representation  approaching  to  a  separate  personality,  such 
as  is  figuratively  given  to  it  occasionally  even  in  the 
canonical  books  of  the  Old  Testament  (as  in  Job,  chap, 
xxviii,  and  Proverbs,  chap,  viii),  and  still  more  in  the 
apocryphal  books  of  Ecclesiasticus  and  the  Wisdom  of 
Solomon.2  The  influence  of  the  Persian  religious  philo- 
sophy may  perhaps  be  seen  in  some  of  the  minor  details 
of  the  system,  but  only  as  regards  external  form  and 
arrangement  applied  to  a  very  different  philosophical 
conception.  To  the  first  of  these  ideas  is  due  the  addition 
which  Valentinus  made  to  the  system  of  Basilides,  by 
filling  the  supermundane  region  beyond  the  firmament 
with  a  succession  of  ^Eons  or  celestial  beings,  the  ideal 
prototypes  of  things  imperfectly  realised  on  earth.3  The 
vague  conception  which  appears  in  the  earlier  Gnostic 
of  the  Sonship  of  God  finding  its  appropriate  place  in  the 
celestial  region,  assumes  in  the  hands  of  his  successor  the 
form  of  a  definite  multitude  of  personified  ideas.  The 

1  Baur,  I.  c.,  derives  this  idea  also  even     the    material    world    to     the 

from    Platonism.      But    first,  Plato  Supreme  God  as   its  creator.     It  is 

recognises      an      eternal      unformed  only  the  mortal  bodies  of  men  which 

matter,  which  is  not  to  be  found  in  are  the  work  of  inferior  beings,  and 

the  system  of  Valentinus,  and  which  even  this  is  done  by  the  command  of 

precludes  the  pantheistic  hypothesis  God.      Cf.    Timceus    pp.    29-34,   41 

of  the  origin  of  matter ;  and  secondly,  seq. 

Plato  does  not  regard  the  creation  as  2  Cf.  Eccles.  i.  1-10,  xxiv.  1-18  ; 

a  fall,    but   distinctly   attributes  it  Wisd.  vii.  22-30,  viii.  1-9,  ix.  9-11. 
to  the  goodness  of  God ;  and  refers  3  Cf.  Harvey's  Iren&us  I.  p.  cxi.  seq. 


LECT.  xi.     VALENTINUS  AND  THE  VALENT1NIANS.        169 

half-material,  half-spiritual  conception  of  the  firmament, 
or  air,  or  spirit,  which  in  the  theory  of  Basilides  forms 
the  boundary  between  the  supermundane  and  the  mundane 
region,  is  replaced  in  the  system  of  Valentinus  by  the  .ZEon 
Horus  (opos),  not  the  Egyptian  deity  of  that  name,  but  a 
personification  of  the  Greek  term  signifying  limit  or  boun- 
dary.1 To  the  combination  of  the  second  and  third  ideas 
is  due  the  strange  fancy  of  the  passion  and  sorrow  of  the 
lower  or  mundane  Sophia,  whose  distinctive  name,  Acha- 
moth,  borrowed  from  the  word  designating  creative  wisdom 
in  the  Book  of  Proverbs,2  together  with  the  whole  descrip- 
tion of  her  fall  and  sufferings,  is  intended  to  intimate  that 
divine  wisdom  cannot  stoop  to  the  work  of  material  creation 
without  being  first  degraded  from  her  divine  nature,  and 
expelled,  as  it  were,  from  her  heavenly  habitation. 

The  system  of  Valentinus  commences  with  an  assump- 
tion which,  though  cognate  to  that  of  Basilides,  differs 
from  it  as  a  poetical  personification  differs  from  a  merely 
metaphysical  abstraction.  In  the  place  of  the  non-exis- 
tent God,  who  is  simply  described  by  negatives,  who  has 
no  name  in  language  and  no  attributes,  not  even  that 
of  definite  existence,  Valentinus  substitutes  the  conception 
of  a  primary  being  who  is  named  Bu0os  or  Depth ;  a 
term  which,  while  it  is  not  much  more  definite  than  the 
OVK  wv  6sos  of  Basilides,  yet  serves  to  exhibit  the  absolute 
first  principle  in  a  positive  rather  than  a  negative  aspect, 
as  potentially  containing  all  existence  rather  than  as 
actually  determined  by  none.3  The  negative  or  meta- 


1  Cf.    Baur,     Die     Chr.     Gnosis  singular    niD^n  is  use(i  of  creative 

P-  128-  wisdom  in  viii.  1,  12.     Cf.  Harvey's 

2  Achamoth      is      the      Hebrew  iren(BMS  i.  p<  cxxiii. 

niB?n.       The    exact   word,    in    its  3  Cf    Neander,    Church  Hist.  II. 

plural  form,  though  with  a  singular  p.    72    (Bohn).     Irenseus    gives  the 

sense,   occurs  Prov.   ix.   1,  '  Wisdom  name  of  BvObs  to  the  first  principle  of 

hath  builded  her  house;'  while  the  those  Valentinians  whom  he  is  de- 


170  EGYPTIAN  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  si. 

physical  side  of  the  same  conception  appears  however  in 
the  other  name  said  to  be  given  by  Valentinus  to  the 
same  principle,  that  of  "App^os  or  the  Unspeakable. 
After  this  first  assumption,  we  are  told  that  the  disciples 
of  Valentinus  differed  from  each  other,  some  regarding 
the  first  principle  as  a  solitary  monad,  developing  all 
derived  existence  from  itself  alone,  while  others,  following 
the  analogy  of  natural  generation,  by  the  union  of  male 
and  female,  assigned  to  the  first  principle  a  consort  called 
^tyrj  or  Silence.1  If  we  may  venture  to  conjecture,  both 
from  the  natural  development  or  rather  corruption  which 
such  a  system  was  likely  to  undergo,  as  well  as  from  the 
relation  which  probably  existed  between  Valentinus  and 
Basilides,  we  should  be  disposed  to  consider  the  former  as 
the  original  theory ;  the  two  epithets  bestowed  upon  the 
primary  Being,  BvObs  and  "Afros',  having  been  subse- 
quently, in  order  to  give  a  supposed  symmetry  to  the 
system,  developed  into  two  separate  beings,  ~BvObs  and 
S^ry.2  The  rest  of  the  system  proceeds  according  to  a 
regular  co-ordination  of  pairs,  a  masculine  and  a  feminine 
principle.  From  ~Bv06s,  or  from  ~Bv6bs  and  "Ziyrj,  sprang  No{5? 
and  'AA?7#£ia  ;  from  these  AOYOS  and  ZCMJ  ;  and  from  these 
again  "Av6pa)7ros  and  'Etc/cXrjo-la.3  According  to  one,  and 

scribing  in  i.  c.  1,  who  are  probably  valent    Tlpoirdrcap,    seems    to    assign 

the  Ptolemseans.     But  in  c.  11,  when  especially  to  the  Ptolemseans,  while 

describing  the  theory   of  Valentinus  he   gives   the  name  of  iraTijp  to  the 

himself,   he  seems  to  speak   of    the  second  male  principle,  i.  11. 

terms  Bu0bs  and  "ApprjTos  as  applied  l   Hippol.  Kef.  Hcer,  vi.  29.    Bun- 

by  him  to  the  same  being,  the  former  sen  (Hippolytus  I.  p.  63)  supposes  the 

being   cut   off  from   the   rest  of  the  extracts   cited   by   Hippolytus  to  be 

Pleroma  by  the  first  "Opos.  Here  BvBbs  from   Valentinus   himself,   and   thus 

perhaps    comprehends  ''Appi^ros     and  confirms    the   supposition    that    the 

2177;,  and  may  thus  have  designated  monadic  assumption  was  the  original. 

at  the  same  time  the  unity  and  genera-  2  Of.  Matter,  Hist,  du  Gnosticisme 

tive    power    of    the    first    principle.  II.  p.  55. 

Hippolytus,    who   professes    to   give  3  Irenseus,  i.  1  ;  cf.  i.    11,  where 

a  system  common  to  Valentinus  and  Ilar^p  is   substituted  for  Novs ;  Hip- 

his  followers,   substitutes   the   name  polytus,  vi.  29. 
which  Irenaeus,  under  the  equi- 


LECT.  XL     VALENTINUS  AND  THE  VALENTINIANS.       171 

probably  the  earlier,  representation,  these  three  pairs, 
omitting  the  first  principle,  formed  the  beginning  of  an 
Ogdoad,  which  had  yet  to  be  completed  by  a  fourth  pair ; 
according  to  another  representation,  they  formed  in  con- 
junction with  the  first  pair,  BvObs  and  ^17^,  an  Ogdoad 
complete.1 

The  number  of  the  Ogdoad  may  perhaps  have  been 
suggested  by  the  eight  primary  gods  of  the  Egyptian 
mythology,2  but  it  had  also  a  further  mystical  signification 
connected  with  the  Pythagorean  theory  of  numbers.  For 
the  eight  were  in  a  manner  reduced  to  four,  by  regarding 
the  four  feminine  elements  as  mere  negative  complements 
of  the  masculine,  the  latter  being  represented  as  bisexual, 
and  as  giving  names  to  the  four  members  of  the  series.3 
The  first  series  of  .ZEons  thus  answers  to  the  celebrated 
Pythagorean  Tetrad,  i.e.  the  first  four  numbers,  which 
added  together  form  the  perfect  number  ten.  The 
Ogdoad,  including  the  feminine  elements,  was  also  sub- 
divided into  two  Tetrads.4 

It  was  probably  this  arithmetical  and  philosophical 
relation  between  the  numbers  four  and  ten  which  sug- 
gested the  next  step  in  the  generation  of  the  Yalentinian 
j33ons,  in  which  A 070$  and  Zw^,  or,  according  to  another 
view,  NoO?  and  'AXtjOeta — these  being  in  different  state- 
ments the  completing  numbers  of  the  first  Tetrad — gave 
birth  to  a  second  order  of  JEons,  ten  in  number.5  These 

1  The  former   view  is  given  by  s  Ireneeus,  i.  11. 1 ;  Hippolytus,  vi. 
Hippolytus,  vi.  29,  31  ;  the  latter  by  29.      The    former     view    seems    to 
Irenseus,  i.  1.  11.  accord  with  the  theory  of  those  who 

2  Herodotus,  i.  46,  145.  excluded  BvObs  from  the  Ogdoad  and 

3  Irenseus,  i.  1.  1.       Cf.  Harvey,  left  it  for  a  time  incomplete;   and 
p.  cxv;  Matter,  Hist,  du  Gnost.  II.  this  view  is  attributed  by  Irenseus  to 
p.  56.  Valentinus     himself.      The     second 

4  Cf.  Irenseus,  i.  1.  1  and  i.  8.  5.  view  belongs  more  naturally  to  those 
For  the  Pythagorean  theory,  see  Sext.  who  framed  the  first  Tetrad  by 
Empir.  Adv.  Math.  vii.  94  seq.     Cf.  and  2iyf)t  Nous  and  ' 

Hippolytns,  vi.  23. 


172  EGYPTIAN  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  XL 

ten  .ZEons  of  the  second  order  are  arranged,  like  the 
former,  in  pairs,  male  and  female,  and  are  named  ~Bv0ios 
and  M/fts,  'A.yijpaTos  and  "Ev&xm,  A-vTocfrvrjs  and  fH8ov?7, 
'Afcwrjros  and  ^vjKpaa-ts,  Movoysvrjs  and  Mafcapta.}  After 
this,  "AvOptoTTos  and  'EKK\r)<rta  (or,  according  to  another 
account,  AOYOS  and  Zwrj)  produce  a  third  order  of  ^Eons, 
comprised  in  the  imperfect  number  twelve  (a  number 
perhaps  suggested  by  the  twelve  secondary  gods  of  the 
Egyptian  mythology).  These  twelve  are,  like  their  pre- 
decessors, arranged  in  pairs,  male  and  female,  and  are 
called  Hapdic\T)To$  and  Hums,  HaTpiiebs  and  "E\7us, 
and  'A.ya7rij,  'Aewws  [perhaps  read  Aicovios]  and 
'l^/CK^rjciaanfcbs  and  Ma/captorr)?,  ®s\r)rbs  and 
2o<£ta.2  The  entire  sum  of  the  .ZEons  of  the  three  orders, 
the  Ogdoad,  the  Decad,  and  the  Dodecad,  amounts  to 
thirty,  or,  with  the  imperfect  Ogdoad,  to  twenty-eight ; 
and  the  circumstance  that  these  numbers  correspond  also, 
according  to  different  modes  of  reckoning,  with  those  of 
the  Izeds  of  the  Persian  mythology  (with  or  without 
Ormuzd  and  Mithra),  the  six  Amskaspands  also  corre- 
sponding in  number  with  the  imperfect  Ogdoad,3  has  led 
some  writers  to  suppose  a  Persian  origin  for  this  portion 
of  the  Yalentinian  system.4  But  when  we  consider  that 
the  principle  of  the  Valentinian  doctrine  is  wholly  incom- 
patible with  the  Persian  dualism,  that  the  elements  of  the 
calculation  can  be  obtained  from  other  and  more  cognate 
sources,  and  that  both  Irenseus  and  Hippolytus  expressly 
refer  this  portion  of  the  Yalentinian  theory  to  a  Pythago- 
rean source,5  we  may  perhaps  doubt  whether  the  affinity 


1  Irenseus,  i.  1.  2.      Cf.  Hippoly-  I.    p.     118;    Harvey's     Ireneeus     I. 
tus,  vi.  30.  p.  cxi ;  Massuet,  Diss.  Prcev.  in  Iren. 

2  Irenseus,  I.  c. ;  Hippolytus,  I.  c.  i.  §  45. 

8  See  above,  Lecture  II.  p.  26.  5  Irenseus,  i.  1.  1 ;  Hippolytus,  vi. 

4  See  Matter,  Hist,  du  Gnosticisme,  21-23,  29. 


LECT.  xi.     VALENTINUS  AND  THE  VALENTINIANS.       173 

with  the  Zoroastrian  numbers  is  more  than  an  accidental 
coincidence. 

Amid  much  that  is  fanciful  and  arbitrary  in  this  wild 
play  of  the  imagination,  it  is  yet  possible  to  trace  a  philo- 
sophical principle  and  method  disguised  under  a  luxuriance 
of  poetical  imagery.  The  first  order  of  2Eons,  the  Ogdoad, 
is  obviously  intended  to  represent  the  Supreme  Being  in 
two  aspects  :  first,  in  his  absolute  nature,  as  inscrutable  and 
unspeakable;  secondly,  in  his  relative  nature,  as  mani- 
festing himself  in  operation.1  We  have,  first,  Bu0os  and 
£1777,  the  impenetrable  depth,  the  unutterable  silence.  Then 
the  first  manifestation,  Thought,  preparatory  to  action,  a 
purely  intellectual  process  indicated  by  Nous,  whose  counter- 
part is  *A\r)6sia,  that  perfect  truth  which  belongs  to  Divine 
thought,  the  companion,  as  in  Plato,2  of  real  existence. 
Then  comes  Aoyos,  or  Speech,  representing  the  manifesta- 
tion of  the  Divine  thought,  with  Zwrj,  indicating  the  life- 
giving  power  of  the  creative  word,  and  finally  "A^^WTTOP, 
the  ideal  man,  the  most  perfect  expression  of  the  Divine 
thought,  regarded,  like  the  Adam  Kadmon  of  the  Kabbala, 
as  the  sum  of  all  the  Divine  attributes,  to  whom  is  assigned 
as  a  companion  'E«/c\7;o-ta,  indicating  the  Gnostic  theory 
of  a  perfect  separation  between  the  higher  and  the  lower 
orders  of  men  ;  the  ideal  man  being  the  type  only  of  the 
Gnostic  or  spiritual  man,  who  is  separated  from  the  rest 
of  mankind,  as  the  Church  is  separated  from  the  world.3 
All  these  however  it  must  be  remembered,  have  thus  far 


1  This  explanation  is  perhaps  con-  Matter  (vol.  II.  p.  57)  traces  " 
firmed   by   the  appellation  StafleVeis  and  'E/c/cATjo-io  to   the  Christian  doc- 
given   to    the   JEons   by  Ptolemseus  trine     of    Christ     being    the    Head 
(Irenseus,  i.   12.  1);   cf.  Matter,  II.  of  the  Church,  and  'AA^06ia  and  Zo?r; 
p.  49,     See  also  Matter,  II.  p.  59,  for  to  our   Lord's   words,  John  xiv.    6. 
the  germ  of  a  similar  explanation  of  The  language  may  perhaps  have  been 
the  ./Eons.  partly  suggested  by  these  expressions, 

2  Eesp.  vi.  p.  508.  but  the  Christ  proper  in  the  system 

3  Cf.  Harvey's  Irenceus  I.  p.  cxxi.  of  Valentinus  is  a  later  emanation. 


174  EGYPTIAN  GNOSTICISM.  LECT.  xi. 

no  relation  to  the  actual  creation  of  a  material  world.  The 
spiritual  man  is  not,  as  in  the  system  of  Basilides,  re- 
garded as  first  existing  in  combination  with  matter,  and 
afterwards  purified  from  material  accretions  and  exalted 
to  the  celestial  region.  The  ideal  man  of  Yalentinus  is  a 
being  who  not  only  has  not  as  yet  any  reflected  counter- 
part in  the  material  world,  but  who  ought  not  to  have 
any.  He  exists  only  as  a  Divine  conception ;  the  subse- 
quent imperfect  realisation  of  that  conception  in  connec- 
tion with  matter,  and  indeed  the  existence  of  matter 
and  the  material  world  altogether,  being  no  part  of  the 
Divine  plan,  but  only  taking  place  in  consequence,  as  we 
shall  see  hereafter,  of  a  fall  from  the  original  perfection  of 
the  ideal  world.  The  only  existence  recognised  at  present 
is  that  of  the  Divine  Being,  evolving  and  contemplating 
his  own  perfections.  The  philosopher  has  sprung  per 
saltum,  apparently  without  being  conscious  of  the  diffi- 
culty, over  the  first  problem  of  ontology,  how  the  absolute 
can  give  existence  to  the  relative;  but  he  has  not  yet 
approached  the  second  and  yet  more  difficult  problem, 
how  perfection  can  give  rise  to  imperfection,  good  to 
evil. 

If  now  we  examine  the  second  and  third  orders  of 
.ZEons,  the  Decad  and  the  Dodecad,  we  shall  see  that  the 
masculine  terms  in  nearly  every  instance  represent  some 
epithet  which  may  be  applied  directly  or  indirectly  to  the 
Deity,  while  the  feminine  terms  represent  some  operation 
or  gift  by  which  he  is  manifested  in  nature,  or  in  grace. 
In  the  Decad  the  terms  BV&WS,  'AyrjpaTos,  'AKIVTJTOS,  with 
their  feminine  counterparts,  M/f«,  "Ei/wcm,  ^vy/cpao-is, 
speak  for  themselves  ;  they  are  clearly  meant  to  represent 
that  combination  of  unity  with  variety,  of  the  infinite  with 
the  finite,  of  identity  with  difference,  which  is  implied  in 
the  notion  of  derived  and  definite  existence.  These  then 


LECT.  xi.     VALENTINUS  AND  THE  VALENTINIANS.        175 

are  intended  to  represent  the  action  of  the  Deity,  through 
his  attributes,  in  the  formation  of  a  world,  not  however 
of  a  material  world,  but  only  of  a  primary  ideal  world — a 
conception  which  may  perhaps  have  been  suggested  by 
Philo's  commentary  on  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis.1  Of 
the  two  remaining  pairs  of  the  Decad,  the  masculine 
elements,  Avro(f>vrjs  and  Moz/o^/si^are  of  the  same  character 
with  the  others.  The  feminine  elements,  'HSovrj  and 
Ma/caput,  do  not  so  readily  lend  themselves  to  this  inter- 
pretation :  but  perhaps  when  we  remember  that  Plato  in 
the  Timseus  describes  the  Creator  as  rejoicing  in  his 
work,2  and  that  in  the  Book  of  Genesis  God  is  described 
as  seeing  '  everything  that  He  had  made,  and  behold  it 
was  very  good ; '  and  when  we  consider  the  mixture  of 
Platonism  and  Judaism  in  the  Alexandrian  philosophy,  in 
which  Yalentinus  was  brought  up,  we  shall  perhaps  be 
able  to  comprehend  the  original  introduction  of  these 
terms  into  the  system,  though  they  may  have  been  after- 
wards perverted  to  a  less  innocent  meaning.3  Finally, 
the  conception  which  represents  the  Decad  as  having 
sprung,  not  from  the  absolute  RvOos,  but  from  Aoyos  and 
Za)?;,  or  from  Nous  and  'AXrfOeia,  seems  intended  to  indicate 
that  God,  in  the  aspect  of  Creator,  is  viewed,  not  in  his 
absolute  and  secret  nature,  but  in  his  relative  character, 
as  manifested  by  his  attributes. 

In  the  Dodecad  in  like  manner,  the  masculine  terms 
,  ira-rpiKos,  K.T.X.,  represent  God,  especially  in  His 


1  De  Mundi  Opif.  incorporated  to  attract  converts  from 

2  Eixty>aj/0ei'y,  Timceus  p.  37.  the  Syrian  heathen.     But  the  doctrine 

3  For  the  perversion  of  fiSovi],  see  of  Valentinus  belongs  to  Egypt,  not 
Harvey's  Irenaus,  I.  pp.  Ixxxi,  Ixxxii.  to  Syria,  and  a  much  simpler  expla- 
MaKapiJrTjs  in  the  Dodecad  (the  expla-  nation  can  be  found  for  both  /za/capt'a 
nation  might  perhaps  more  naturally  and  /MKapdrrjs.     The  former  is  given 
apply  to  the  jucwcapta  of  the  Decad)  is  in  the   text ;    the   latter   simply  de- 
supposed  by  Harvey   (p.  cxxiii)  to  notes  blessing  or  happiness,   as  the 
refer  to  Astarte,  the  Syrian  Fortuna,  result  of  religious  grace. 


176  EGYPTIAN  GNOSTICISM.  LECT.  xi. 

religious  relation  towards  man ;  while  the  feminine  terms 
Tr/crm,  s\7ris,  K.T.X.,  represent  the  gifts  of  grace  which 
that  relation  conveys  and  implies.  Here  also  it  must  be 
remembered  that  we  are  considering  not  the  terrestrial 
and  mortal  man,  but  his  ideal  archetype.  The  Platonic 
conception  is  carried  out  to  the  end,  and  every  operation 
in  nature  or  in  grace  is  considered  as  first  existing  in 
idea,  and  as  only  realised  in  a  lower  stage  through  imper- 
fection. The  especially  religious  relation  indicated  by 
the  Dodecad  gives  a  fitness  to  its  production  from  the 
quasi-human  terms  of  the  Ogdoad/AvfywTros-  and  'E/ctfX^cria, 
though  the  same  relation  is  also  indicated  less  immediately 
by  the  other  derivation  from  Aoyos  and  Z&nj.1 

In  support  of  their  theory,  the  Yalentinians  adopted 
some  wild  allegorical  interpretations  of  various  passages 
in  the  New  Testament,  in  which  they  asserted  their  views 
to  be  figuratively  intimated.2  But  they  also  professed  to 
find  a  more  direct  assertion  of  them  in  the  opening  words 
of  the  Gospel  of  St.  John,3  and  if  the  use  of  this  last 

1  The   explanations    above   given  Valentinus  himself,  is  expressly  cited 

are  based  on  the   Greek  names  as-  by  Epiphanius  as  the  work  of  one  of 

signed    to   the    .ZEons,    which    both  his  disciples  (cf.  Massuet,  Diss.  in  Ire- 

Irenseus  and  Hippolytus   give   as    if  n<eum'\.  §  10).   It  would  be  quite  in  the 

they  were  original  to  the  system.      It  spirit  of  a  Palestinian  impostor  like 

is  true  that  Epiphanius  (Hcer.  xxxi.  Marcus  to  render  his  master's  terms 

2,    6)  gives  the  names  in  a  different  into  an  Oriental  language,  to  terrify 

language    (probably    Aramaic),    and  his  dupes  by  mysterious  sounds  in  an 

this  list  is  considered  by  Matter,  II.  unknown  tongue.     For  the  Aramaic 

p.  64,  as  the  original.     But  the  text  names  of  the  ,ZEons,  with  an  attempted 

as  given  in  Epiphanius  is  too  corrupt  explanation,  see  Matter,  vol.  II.  pp. 

for   any  certain  explanation   without  65,  66. 

the  aid  of  the  Greek;  and  it  is  more  2  See    the    various     passages   in 

than  probable  that  the  latter  was  the  Irenaeus,  i.  8.  1-4. 
original  form.     Valentinus,  educated  3  Since  the  recovery  of  the  work 

at  Alexandria,  and  a  devoted  Platonist,  of  Hippolytus,  who  (vi.  35)  refers  to  St. 

would  be  most  likely  to  use  the  Greek  John  x.  8,  apparently  as  cited  by  Va- 

language.   The  names,  which  Epipha-  lentinus  himself.     Even  this  is  hardly 

nius  gives  three  times,  are  obviously  needed,  for  the  same  work  (vii.  22, 

taken  from  the  work  which  he  quotes  27)  shows  that  this  Gospel  was  also 

in  §§  5,  6  ;  and  this  work,  which  some  used  by  the  earlier  Basilides. 
have  erroneously  thought   to  be    by 


LECT.  xi.     VALENTINUS  AND   THE   VALENTINIANS.      177 

authority  can  be  traced,  as  it  now  almost  certainly  can, 
to  Yalentinus  himself,  it  will  furnish  an  additional  proof 
of  the  untenable  character  of  the  Tubingen  hypothesis, 
which  maintains  this  Gospel  to  have -been  written  as  late 
as  the  middle  of  the  second  century.1  The  fourth  verse 
of  this  Gospel,  sv  avrat  [sc.  rc3  Ao7Ct)]  £0)77  fy,  Kal  rj  ^corj  rjv  TO 
<j)&f  T&V  av6p(i>T7(*>v,  was  interpreted  by  these  heretics  as 
speaking  of  the  second  portion  of  the  Ogdoad,  Aoyos  and 
Za>r],  "AvQpcaTTos  and  (by  implication)  'E/c/cX^o-ta,  while  the 
latter  part  of  the  fourteenth  verse,  teal  6  Aoyos  o-apj;  eyevero, 
KOL  scTKijvcoo-sv  sv  rjjMV  (fcal  sOsacrdfjisda  rrjv  So^av  avrov,  $6£av  a>s 
fAovoysvovs  Trapa  Tlarpos)  irXrjpTjs  ^dpiroy  /ecu  a\r)6slas,  was  in- 
terpreted in  like  manner  with  reference  to  the  first  Tetrad, 
the  unseen  Father,  the  2^777  (identified  with  %apts),  the 
only-begotten  Nous,  and  his  feminine  counterpart  AXr^aa.2 
This  exposition,  as  cited  by  Irenseus,  appears  to  be  taken 
from  a  work  of  Ptolemseus,  the  disciple  of  Yalentinus,  the 
date  of  which,  though  it  cannot  be  determined  exactly, 
can  hardly  be  placed  later  than  A.D.  1 70.3  The  evidence 
which  we  now  possess  of  the  use  of  St.  John's  Gospel  by 
Valentinus  himself  would  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
nomenclature  of  the  heresiarch  himself,  as  well  as  that  of 
his  disciple,  was  partly  borrowed  from  this  source ;  and 
even  were  that  testimony  not  in  existence,  it  is  utterly 
inconceivable  that  a  forgery  of  the  middle  of  the  second 

1  Baur,  Kanon.  Evangr.  p.  357,  case  §§  1-4  prove  nothing, 
deals  very  unfairly  with  the  testimony  2  Irenseus,  i.  8.  5. 
of  Irenseus,  i.  8.  He  builds  on  the  fact  3  Matter,  II.  p.  J02,  places  the 
that  St.  John  is  not  cited  in  the  first  floruit  of  Ptolemseus  about  A.D.  166. 
four  sections,  to  show  that  the  early  The  composition  of  the  work  of  Ire- 
Valentinians  were  unacquainted  with  naeus  can  hardly  be  placed  later  than 
this  Gospel,  but  omits  the  fifth  section  A.D.  188,  or,  according  to  another  corn- 
in  which  it  is  expressly  quoted.  But  putation,  190  (cf.  Harvey,  p.  clviii  ; 
either  the  whole  testimony  of  this  Bearen,  Account  of  Iren&us  p.  34), 
chapter  is  earlier  than  the  date  and  twenty  years  is  not  too  long  to 
assigned  by  Baur  to  the  Gospel,  in  allow  for  the  spread  of  Ptolemgean 
which  case  §  5  overthrows  the  hypo-  doctrines  to  the  point  at  which  they 
thesis  ;  or  the  whole  is  later,  in  which  appear  in  Irenseus. 


178  EGYPTIAN  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  XL 

century  should  have  been  generally  received  as  a  canonical 
book,  and  the  work  of  an  Apostle,  within  twenty  years 
after  its  composition. 

The  use  of  the  term  ^Eons  (alwvss)  to  denote  these  per- 
sonifications of  the  Divine  attributes  appears  to  have 
originated  with  Yalentinus.1  The  term,  as  we  have  seen, 
had  previously  been  used  by  Simon  Magus  (if  the  i  Great 
Announcement '  is  his  work)  in  its  more  ordinary  sense  of 
ages,  to  denote  eternity,  and  also  in  the  same  sense  by  St. 
Paul  (1  Tim.  i.  17),  and  previously  in  the  Book  of  Eccle- 
siasticus  (xxxvi.  17).2  All  these  may  be  traced  back  to 
the  use  of  the  same  term  in  the  singular  number  by  Plato3 
to  signify  the  ever-present  form  of  the  Divine  existence 
prior  to  the  creation  of  time,  i.e.  eternity.  The  tran- 
sition from  this  sense  to  that  of  the  different  modes  or 
attributes  by  which  this  eternal  existence  was  supposed 
to  be  manifested  is  not  very  violent. 

As  regards  the  other  Valentinian  term  7r\r)pw^a,  em- 
ployed to  designate  the  entire  system  of  thirty  .ZEons 
regarded  as  a  collective  whole,4  there  are  no  positive  data 
to  determine  the  time  when  it  was  first  used  in  connection 
with  Gnostic  doctrines.  There  is  no  reason  why  it  may 
not  have  been  used  to  denote  the  pi&i  of  Simon.  Magus, 
as  well  as  the  alwvss  of  Valentinus ;  and  its  employment 
by  St.  Paul,  as  we  have  pointed  out  in  a  former  lecture, 
may  possibly  in  some  passages  have  been  suggested  by 
some  such  application  of  the  term  by  the  early  Gnostics ; 
but  the  word  itself  is  a  common  one,  and  may  naturally 
have  been  employed  independently  of  any  such  suggestion, 


1  Hippol.  vi.  20  (p.  258,  Duncker).  3  Timteus  37  D. 

See  above  Lect.  IV,  p.  62.      See  also  4  Irenseus,     i.     1.    3       rovro    rb 

Matter,    vol.    II.    p.    53,    and  on  the  aoparov  Kal    Trvfvfj.aTi.Kbv   /COT'    avrovs 

JEons,  as  manifestations  of  God,  ibid.  Tr^pw/j-a,  rpix^l  ^if(rra^4vov  els 

p.  59.  /cat  5e/ca§«  /cat  5«5e/ca5a. 

2  See  above,  Lect.  VI,  p.  88. 


LECT.  XL     VALENTINUS  AND  THE  VALENTINIANS.        179 

and  though  there  is  probably  some  connection  between  its 
use  as  applied  to  God  in  the  New  Testament  and  its 
similar  use  by  the  Gnostic  teachers,  it  is  impossible  to 
decide  whether  the  former  suggested  it  to  the  latter  or 
the  latter  to  the  former.1 

The  remainder  of  the  Yalentinian  theory  carries  out 
with  the  utmost  exactness  the  same  Platonic  conception 
which  is  predominant  in  the  portion  already  exhibited. 
As  there  is  an  ideal  archetype  of  the  Divine  manifestation 
in  nature  and  in  religion,  so  there  must  be  an  ideal  arche- 
type of  the  fall  and  the  redemption  of  the  world,  and  even 
the  Christ  who  comes  into  the  world  for  the  redemption 
of  mankind  must  find  his  ideal  pattern  in  another  Christ 
who  has  a  redeeming  office  in  heaven.  And  in  strict 
accordance  with  the  Gnostic  doctrine  the  work  of  redemp- 
tion consists  in  the  communication  of  knowledge.  In  the 
application  of  this  theory  the  different  Yalentinian  schools 
differed  from  each  other ;  and  those  details  which  are 
expressly  ascribed  to  Yalentinus  himself  are  unfortunately 
the  most  meagre  and  incomplete  of  all.  Much  however 
of  what  is  recorded  by  Irenseus  as  the  doctrine  of  his 
disciple  Ptolemseus  must  have  been  common  to  both 
teachers,  the  differences  probably  extending  only  to  some 
unimportant  particulars,  on  which  it  is  not  necessary  to 
dwell.2  The  several  j3Eons  according  to  this  exposition 

1  See   Olshausen   on  Eph.   i.  23.  parate   existences.      See    Olshausen, 

The  word  is  often  used  in  the  Septua-  I.  c. 

gint  in  relation  to  material  objects,  as  2  Valentinus   himself  is   said    to 

in  Ps.  xxiii.  (xxiv.)  1,  TOV  Kvpiovrj  77}  have    imagined    first    a    dyad  with- 

Kal   rb  7rA./)pa>|iia   auTTjs.       Philo,  De  out  name,  comprising    'AppTjros  and 

Pram,  et  Pan.  21  (p.  418),  uses  it  with  2177?,  probably,  as  observed  above,  a 

reference  to  the  soul  of  man,  yfvo/j.tvn  bisexual  monad,  the  two  names  being 

Sfirh-fjpw/j.aa.peTwvYjtyvx'fl.    As  applied  identical    in    sense;   then    a    second 

to  God  in  the  N.  T.,  it  means  in  like  dyad,  called  Harty,  and  'A\Vj0em  (Uar^p 

manner  God  as  filled  with  all  divine  being    thus   applied    to    the    second 

excellencies  ;  and  the   Gnostic  error  masculine  JEou  Now  :  this  more  nearly 

consisted  merely  in  the  mode  in  which  approaches      to      Basilides,      Father 

they  viewed  these  excellencies  as  se-  being  thought  too  definite  a  concep- 

N  2 


180  EGYPTIAN  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  xi. 

were  not  originally  equal  in  knowledge.  Nous-  alone  was 
cognisant  of  the  nature  of  the  supreme  Father,1  which  he 
wished  to  communicate  to  the  others,  but  was  withheld 
according  to  the  Father's  will  by  %i<yij.  This  created  in 
them  a  desire  of  the  forbidden  knowledge,  which  was 
moderate  in  elder  .ZEons,  but  became  a  violent  passion  in 
the  youngest,  2o$/a.  In  her  the  desire  to  comprehend 
the  Father  became  an  agony  and  a  struggle  which  would 
have  ended  in  her  entire  absorption  into  the  Divine 
essence,  had  she  not  come  into  contact  with  ^Opoy,  the 
limiting  power,  which  keeps  all  things  apart  from  the 
ineffable  magnitude.2  By  this  power  she  was  finally 
restrained  and  convinced  that  the  Father  is  incompre- 
hensible, and  thus  laid  aside  her  former  design  (rrjv 
TTporspav  sv0v/inj(nv)  with  the  passion  that  had  accompanied 
it.  This  abandoned  design,  which  is  itself  personified, 
plays  an  important  part  in  the  subsequent  portion  of  the 
theory,  being  separated  byf/Opos  from  2o<£ta  and  banished 
to  the  region  outside  the  Pleroma,  while  2o<£/a  herself  was 
restored  to  her  place  within  it. 

tion  for  an  absolute  first  principle) ;  the    latter     however    being    princi- 

thenthe  other  ^Eons  as  enumerated  in  pally  intended),  AvTpcar-fjs,  KapirKn-ns 

the  account  given  in  the  text.  He  also  (perhaps,    as    Neander  interprets  it, 

assumed  two^Opot,  one  between  Bi»0bs  the  reaper,    or  rather   winnower,   as 

and  the  rest  of  the  Pleroma,  the  other  separating  the  grain  from  the  chaff 

separating  the  whole  Pleroma  from  all  or  the  wheat  from  the  tares),  'OpoQerrjs, 

beyond  it.     He  also  regarded  Christ,  and  Meraywyevs  (as  restoring  2o(pia  to 

the  second  Christ,  as  generated,  not  her  place  in  the  Pleroma)  :  cf»  Ire- 

from  all  the  J3ons,  but  from  the  mother  nseus,  i.  2.  4.  Also  Meroxeus  (Hippol. 

(Achamoth)    without    the    Pleroma.  vi.    31),    as    the    boundary    of    the 

See  Irenseus,  i.   11.  1.     That  this  is  Pleroma,    and   therefore  common   to 

not   Valentinus's    original  view,    see  that  within  and  that   without.     Ac- 

Baur,  Chr.  Grnosisp,  133.  cording  to  one   form   of    the  theory 

1  Perhaps     an      application       of  (Irenseus,  i.  2.  4 ;  Hippol.  vi.  31)  this 
Matt.  xi.  27,  though  the  Valentinian  Horus  was  at  this  time  first  put  forth 
NoGs  is  distinguished  from  Christ.  Cf.  by  the  Father  to  restrain  the  purpose 
Matter,  II.  p.  68.  of     Sophia.       The     other     account 

2  "Opos     is    also    called    ^.ravpos       (Irenseus,  i.  2.  2)  seems  to  regard  him 
(perhaps  with  a  play  upon  the   two       as  already  existing. 

meanings,  a  cross  and  a  stake-fence,' 


LECT.  XL     VALENTIN  US  AND  THE  VALENTINIANS.        181 

We  are  next  told  that  to  prevent  the  recurrence  of  a 
similar  disturbance  in  the  Pleroma,  the  forethought  of  the 
Father  caused  Movoysvrjs  (Nous)  to  put  forth  by  emanation 
another  pair  of  .ZEons,  who  are  called  Christ  and  the  Holy 
Spirit  [the  latter  being,  as  in  some  other  Gnostic  systems, 
represented  as  feminine].1  Christ  prevented  any  future 
longing  of  the  .ZEons  for  unattainable  knowledge  by  teach- 
ing them  that  the  supreme  Being  is  incomprehensible  in 
himself  and  can  only  be  known  through  the  Only-begotten 
(Now-),  and  that  their  existence  and  continuance  depended 
upon  this  truth.  After  this  the  Holy  Spirit  rendered  all 
the  .ZEons  equal  to  each  other,  so  that  the  same  names 
became  applicable  to  all ;  and  having  thus  given  them 
perfect  rest,  taught  them  to  unite  in  giving  gifts  as  a 
thank-offering  in  honour  of  the  Father.  Each  -ZEon  contri- 
buted that  which  was  most  excellent  in  himself,  and  from 
these  contributions  emanated  a  Being,  c  the  most  perfect 
beauty  and  constellation  of  the  Plerorna,'  called  Jesus  and 
Saviour  and  Christ  and  Logos,  and  also  ra  Trdvra,  as  pro- 
duced from  all.  With  him  were  also  produced  the  Angels, 
who  acted  as  his  body-guard.2  In  support  of  this  hypo- 
thesis of  the  generation  of  tfye  Saviour,  the  Valentiniaiis 
perverted  the  words  of  St.  Paul,  £%  avrov  KOL  St'  aurov  KOI 
sis  avrbv  TO,  Trdvra  (Rom.  xi.  36),  and  sv  avrq)  Karoucsl  TTCLV 
TO  TrXrjpcDfjLa  TTJS  BsoTrjTos  (Col.  ii.  9),  and  avaK-sfyaXaiaxraGOat, 
TO,  iravra  sv  TCO  Xpiara)  (Eph.  i.  10).  It  will  be  observed 

1  Cf.  Harvey's  Irenaus,  I.  p.  cxxvii;  latter,  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit  are 
Matter,  Hist,  du  Gnost.  II.  p.  70.  emitted  first  from  Nous  and  'A\-f)6eia, 
The  accounts  given  by  Irenseus,  i.  2.  to  separate  the  e/crpw/xa  (eV0ujurj(m) 
5,  and  by  Hippolytus,  vi.  31,  slightly  and  to  console  the  mourning  Soviet, 
differ  in  detail.  According,  to  the  and  then  "Opos  is  emitted  by  the 
former  "Opos  is  emitted  first,  to  sepa-  Father  to  keep  the  e/crpaj/xo  for  ever 
rate  the  iivdv/juqais  from  2o(pfa  and  to  apart  from  the  perfect  ^Eons. 
restore  the  latter  to  the  Pleroma ;  2  Irenseus,  i.  2.  6.  Cf.  Hippo- 
then  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit  are  lytus,  vi.  31,  who  describes  the  second 
emitted  to  teach  the  ^Eons  and  Christ  under  the  names  of  Jesus  and 
restore  harmony.  According  to  the  5  Kowbs  rov  irATjpftjjuoTo 


182  EGYPTIAN  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  xi. 

that  this  theory  recognises  two  Christs,  one  emanating, 
together  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  from  the  first  Mon  Nous1, 
the  other  subsequently  emanating  from  the  contributions 
of  all  the  JEons. 

Thus  far  we  have  given  only  the  first  portion  of  the 
Valentmian  theory,  relating  to  the  divine  economy  within 
the  Pleroma  prior  to  the  existence  of  the  material  world. 
Stripped  of  its  allegorical  imagery,  the  general  meaning 
of  this  part  of  the  theory  seems  to  be  the  exposition  of  a 
doctrine  in  itself  far  from  heretical,  and  indeed  expressly 
admitted  by  some  of  the  most  orthodox  of  the  Fathers, 
namely,  that  the  representation  of  the  divine  nature  by  a 
plurality  of  attributes,  each  attribute  being  distinct  from 
and  therefore  limited  by  others,  is  but  an  inadequate  and 
imperfect  manifestation  of  the  Unlimited,  and  that  these 
attributes,  though  manifested  to  the  finite  intellect  as 
different,  are,  in  their  own  nature,  one  with  each  other, 
and  with  the  divine  Essence.  The  futile  desire  of  So^t'a 
to  comprehend  the  absolute  nature  of  the  supreme  God, 
the  assertion  that  this  desire  could  not  be  gratified  save 
by  her  entire  absorption  into  the  Divine  essence,  intimates 
the  doctrine  that  each  attribute  of  the  Deity,  so  long  as  it 
is  a  separate  attribute,  contains  but  a  partial  and  relative 
manifestation,  and  that  in  His  absolute  nature  this  dis- 
tinction of  attributes  does  not  exist.  In  conformity  with 
this  view,  the  emanation  of  the  relative  from  the  absolute, 
of  the  many  from  the  one,  though  it  be  but  the  manifes- 
tation of  God  Himself  under  various  attributes,  is  regarded 
in  some  sort  as  a  Fall,  typical  of  the  lower  Fall  which 
gave  existence  to  the  material  world ;  and  the  recognition 
of  the  real  unity  and  indifference  of  these  apparently 
diverse  manifestations  is  in  some  sort  a  redemption, 
typical  of  the  redemption  of  the  lower  world.  That  this 
recognition  is  due  to  revelation  made  by  a  Christ,  is  in 


LECT.  xi.     VALENTINUS  AND  THE  VALENTINIANS.        183 

accordance  with  the  Platonic  character  of  the  whole 
system,  which  requires  a  first  Christ  for  the  redemption 
of  the  celestial  world,  to  be  followed  by  a  second  Christ, 
whose  office  will  afterwards  appear  in  fche  redemption  of 
the  terrestrial  world.  That  this  representation  of  re- 
demption by  knowledge  involved  a  grave  misconception  of 
the  office  and  work  of  Christ,  cannot,  even  on  the  most 
favourable  view  of  the  theory,  be  denied  ;  and  many  of  its 
details,  literally  taken,  might  undoubtedly  lead  to  heretical 
views  of  the  Saviour's  person  and  nature.  Yet  every 
error  is  but  a  truth  abused,  and  under  the  veil  of  the 
wild  fancies  and  the  poetical  allegory  of  Yalentinus  we  may 
perhaps  find  hidden  the  doctrine  distinctly  expressed  in 
the  philosophical  theology  of  St.  Augustine :  '  Deus 
multipliciter  quidem  dicitur  magnus,  bonus,  sapiens, 
beatus,  verus,  et  quidquid  aliud  non  indigne  dici  videtur ; 
sed  eadem  magnitude  ejus  est  qus&  sapientia ;  non  enim 
mole  magnus  est,  sed  virtute;  et  eadem  bonitas  quse 
sapientia  et  magnitude,  et  eadem  veritas  quse  ilia  omnia ; 
et  non  est  ibi  aliud  beatum  esse,  et  aliud  magnum,  aut 
sapientem,  aut  verum,  aut  bonum  esse,  aut  omnino  ipsum 
esse.'1 

The  remainder  of  the  system  of  Valentinus,  containing 
his  theory  of  the  creation  and  redemption  of  the  lower 
world,  must  be  reserved  for  our  next  lecture. 

1  De  Trin.  vi.  7.     Cf.  De  Trin.  xv.  5.     See  Aquinas,  Summa,  P.  I.  Q,u .  iii. 
Art.  5,  6,  7  ;  Qu.  ad.  Art.  i. 


184  EGYPTIAN  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  xn. 


LECTURE   XII. 

VALENTINUS   AND    THE   VALENTINIANS. 

THE  philosophical  romance  of  Valentinus  consists  of  three 
parts.  The  first,  which  has  been  described  in  our  last 
lecture,  contains  an  account  of  the  nature  and  system  of 
the  Pleroma  itself,  that  is,  of  the  fulness  of  the  Divine 
attributes  and  operations  :  the  second  relates  to  the  con- 
dition of  things  beyond  the  Pleroma,  before  the  formation 
of  the  visible  world,  constituting  the  stage  of  transition 
from  the  celestial  to  the  terrestrial ;  the  third  describes 
the  origin  and  constitution  of  the  sensible  world  itself.1 
In  the  second  portion,  to  which  we  have  now  to  direct  our 
attention,  the  principal  interest  is  created  by  the  descrip- 
tion of  the  sorrows  and  sufferings  of  a  lady  who  figures 
under  the  name  of  the  younger  Sophia  or  Achamoth,  the 
latter  name  (JfiDpn),  as  I  have  already  stated,  being  taken 
from  the  Hebrew  word  signifying  'wisdom'  in  the  Book  of 
Proverbs.2  This  interesting  heroine  is  a  personification  of 
the  design  (svOvfiijcris)  of  the  elder  Sophia,  the  last  of  the 
JBoiis,  to  comprehend  the  absolute  nature  of  the  Deity. 
We  have  seen  that  Sophia,  when  finally  restrained  by 


1  Massuet,   Diss.   Prcev.   in  Iren.  text   is   cited  by  the  author  of  the 
12.  Didasc.  Orient,  with  reference  to  the 

2  Especially  Prov.  ix.  1      nto?n  second  Sophia,  as  through  the  Demi- 

.   .    „  '- T,  urge    forming     the    material    world 

nn?3,     Wisdom  hath  builded  (C 

her  house,'  where  the  word  is  singular  p.  980). 
in  sense,  though  plural  in  form.     This 


LECT.  xii.     VALENTINUS  AND  THE  VALENTIN1ANS.       185 

Horus,  and  convinced  that  the  Deity  is  incomprehensible, 
is  described  as  having  laid  aside  her  former  design,  with 
the  passion  which  accompanied  it,  and  that  this  aban- 
doned design  was  taken  away  by  Horus  and  banished  to 
a  region  outside  the  Pleroma.  The  adventures  of  the 
Design,  thus  personified  as  a  child  deserted  by  its  parent, 
form  the  second  portion  of  our  romance.  At  first,  we  are 
told,  she  lay  as  it  were  stranded  (iie@8J3pcur6tu)  in  the  region 
of  shadow  and  emptiness  outside  of  the  Pleroma,  being 
herself  without  shape  or  form,  as  a  defective  birth.'1  In 
this  state  she  remained  till  the  higher  Christ,  the  emana- 
tion from  NoOs-,2  took  compassion  on  her,  and  extending 
her  power  beyond  the  limit  of  thef'Opos  and  Zravpos,3  con- 
ferred upon  her  form,  though  without  knowledge.4  Having 
done  this,  he  withdrew  his  influence,  leaving  her  however 
with  a  certain  odour  of  immortality,5  and  desire  after 
higher  things.  Under  the  influence  of  this  desire, 
Achamoth  attempts  to  follow  after  the  light  which  had 
been  withdrawn,  but  was  restrained  by  Horus,  and  unable 
to  enter  the  Pleroma.6  Upon  this  she  became  afflicted 
with  every  kind  of  passion  :  grief,  fear  ,  and  perplexity, 


e/crpw/xa,    5ta    rb    yuajSey  There  is  a  play  on  the  double  meaning 

£,  Iren.  i,  4.  1,    The  theory  of  ~2,ravp6s. 
was,  that  form  is  given  by  the  male  4  p-opQwcrai    fi.6p<p(a(nv     TTJJ/    /COT' 

parent,    substance     by     the     female.  ovalav    fj.6vovy     aAA'     ov     T^JV    Kara 

Hence  Achamoth,  as  the  offspring  of  yvSixrtv.     Achamoth  was  not  enlight- 

Sophia  alone,    was   formless,  having  ened  like  the  ^Eons,  in  order  that  she 

received  nothing  from  a  father.  might  strive  after  higher  knowledge. 

2  TOJ>    [oVw]    XpiffTdv,    superiorem  5  This   resembles   the   theory    of 
Christum  (Iren.    i.  4.   1  :   the  Greek  Basilides  concerning  the  Holy  Spirit 
text    as  preserved     by    Epiphanius,  when  left  by  the  second  U^TTJS  ;  dAAa 
must   be  completed  from  the   Latin),  yap  ILffirep  els  &yyos   e/j.&\r)dev  ptipov 
i.e.  the  elder  or  first  Christ,  the  ema-  euceSeVraToy,        el     Kal     '6ri    ^aAt<rra 
nation  of  Novs  (o  Xpiarbs  firnrpofiXt)-  (Tri/jL€\£>s     e'/c/cei/coflehj,    'dpus  CHrp-fi    ris 
6fls    cnrb  TOV    NoO  ital  rrjy   'AArjfleicss,  Irt  /icVei    TOU    fj.vpov  /cat   KOToAetirerat 
Hippol.  vi,  31).  K.T.A.,     Hippol.  vii.  22. 

3  eireKTavdrivai   Sia  TOU  "Opov    Kal  6  «al   eVraC0a   TOI/  "Opov  /cwAuoj/ra 
SraupoD  Ka\ov/j.evov,     Theodoret,  H<er.  avTi)v  Tys  els  7o{jfjLirpo(r6 

Fab.  i.  7,  explaining  the  language  of  'law'      '66sv  rb  'lacb  ovo^a. 

Irenaeus,  Storov  SraupoD  eire/cTa^eVra.  $da-KOv<ri,     Iren.  i.  4.  1. 


186  EGYPTIAN  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  xn. 

together  with  ignorance,  and  finally  an  earnest  desire  of 
returning  to  the  source  of  her  life  (i.e.  Christ).  From 
these  different  affections  the  lower  world  came  into  exis- 
tence ;  the  soul  of  the  world,  and  that  of  the  Demiurge, 
sprang  from  her  desire  of  returning  to  God  ;  the  material 
portions  from  her  several  passions,  all  liquid  substance, 
having  sprung  from  her  tears,  all  that  is  bright  from  her 
laughter  ;  and  the  corporeal  elements  from  her  grief  and 
consternation.1  The  principal  agent  in  these  transmuta- 
tions was,  according  to  the  Yalentinian  theory,  the  second 
Christ,  the  Saviour  sprung  from  all  the  JEons,  who  being 
sent  down  from  the  Ploroma,  together  with  his  attendant 
angels,  at  the  prayer  of  the  suffering  Achamoth,  imparted 
to  her  knowledge  and  healed  her  passions,  separating 
them  from  her  and  consolidating  them,  so  as  to  change 
them  from  incorporeal  passions  to  unorganised  matter,  out 
of  which  subsequently  the  world  was  formed.  This 
matter  (using  the  term  in  a  wide  sense)  was  of  two  kinds  : 
the  first  (brute  matter),  which  was  evil,  sprang  from  the 
passions  of  Achamoth  ;  the  second  (the  animal  soul) 
sprang  from  her  desire  after  higher  things,  not  in  itself 
evil,  but  liable  to  passions.?  After  this,  Achamoth  is  said 
to  have  brought  forth  a  spiritual  progeny  after  the  like- 
ness of  the  attendant  angels,  by  gazing  on  their  light. 
Thus  then  canie  into  existence  three  kinds  of  substance, 
all  in  different  ways  the  offspring  of  Achamotlj.  ;  the 
material  (tfX^)  sprung  from  her  passions  ;  the  animal 
(^rv^iKov)  from  her  conversion  or  repentance;  and  the 
spiritual  (Trvsv/^ariKov)  from  her  joy  at  the  angelic  light. 


1  Hippolytus  gives  the  particulars  T^V  p.tv  <f>6/3ov  -^V-^IKT^V  eiroirffffv  ovcriav, 
differently  ;  JR.    H.    vi.    3?.     See  the  TTJV  5e   AUTTTJJ/  vXucfiv,  r-fjv  8e  airopiav 
next  note.  Sai/^ovuv^  rrjv  5e  fTriffrpo^v  Kal 

2  Cf.     Hippol.    vi.     32     firoirjffej/  Kal  f/cereiW  avotiov  KOI  p-erdvoiav 
G$V  (Kcrrrivai  fa  irddij  air'   CIVTTJS,  Kal  Svva/J.iv  ^U^JWTJS  ovaias, 

avra  vircffTaTiKas  outrioj,  Kal 


SECT.  xii.     VALENTINUS  AND  THE  VALENTINIANS.      187 

The  last  of  these,  being  of  the  same  nature  as  herself, 
was  not  susceptible  of  any  further  formation  by  her ;  but 
to  the  second,  the  animal,  she  gave  a  form ;  and  thus  pro- 
duced the  Demiurge,  by  whom  the  material  world  was 
afterwards  created  out  of  the  remaining  substance.  The 
formation  of  the  Demiurge  concludes  the  second  portion 
of  the  romance,  which  relates  to  things  intermediate 
between  the  Pleroma  and  the  visible  world. 

In  this  marvellous  narrative,  we  seem  at  first  sight  to 
have  fallen  on  a  poetical  metamorphosis  as  fanciful  as  any 
in  Ovid,  and  far  more  difficult  to  reduce  to  any  definite 
meaning.  A  spiritual  attribute,  an  impersonation  of 
Wisdom  shedding  tears  (even  '  tears  such  as  angels  weep  '), 
and  these  tears,  immaterial  tears,  afterwards  becoming 
condensed  into  matter,  is  a  representation  in  which  it  is 
difficult  at  first  sight  to  see  anything  but  an  utter  coii- 
fusioii  between  both  kinds  of  existence.  But  in  truth 
Yalentinus  had  a  difficult,  indeed  an  impossible,  task 
before  him,  and  we  must  not  be  surprised  if  he  betrays  an 
inclination  to  evade  rather  than  to  accomplish  it.  Hitherto 
he  had  exhibited  the  Absolute  and  the  Eelative  as  merely 
different  aspects  of  one  and  the  same  spiritual  being.  He 
has  now  to  take  the  next  step,  or  rather  leap,  and  explain 
the  manner  in  which  this  spiritual  being  gives  existence 
to  matter.  He  does  not  content  himself,  like  Plato,  whom 
in  other  respects  he  so  closely  follows,  with  assuming  as 
the  germ  of  the  natural  world  an  unformed  matter  existing 
from  all  eternity ; 1  this  is  to  assume  two  independent 
principles,  the  Deity  and  matter  existing  in  contrast  to 
each  other,  and  therefore  neither  of  them  the  one  absolute 
existence.  He  has  commenced  with  one  sole  absolute 
spiritual  existence ;  and  the  material  must,  in  some  way 

1  That  Valentinus  does  not  recognise  an  eternal  matter,  see  Baur,  #ie 
Chr.  Gnosis  p.  165. 


183  EGYPTIAN  GNOSTICISM^  LECT.  xn. 

or  other,  be  evolved  from  it.     In  this  difficulty  he  adopts, 
in  a  disguised  form,  a  hypothesis  which  is  virtually  that 
of  pantheism  :  the  material  world  has  no  real  existence ; 
it   is,  as   it   were,  but  the  shadow  or  reflection  of  the 
spiritual.     In  proportion  as   consciousness   becomes  de- 
finite and  limited,  and  therefore  unable  to  apprehend  the 
absolute  in  its  fulness,  in  the  same  proportion  it  becomes 
conscious  of  an  inability,  a  limitation,  a  something  hinder- 
ing complete  knowledge.   As  spiritual  knowledge  becomes 
fainter  and  less  complete,  this  indefinite  negation  of  know- 
ledge becomes  stronger  and  more  intense,  till  at  last  the 
substance  and  the  shadow,  as  it  were,  change  places,  and 
the  mere  limit  to  the  consciousness  of  the  spiritual  assumes 
a  definite  existence  as  the  material.     The  second  Sophia, 
the  Achamoth,  banished  from  the  Pleromatothe  region  of 
emptiness  and  shadow,  represents  the  development  of  the 
absolute  existence  to   that   degree   of  self- limitation    in 
which  the  positive  consciousness  of  the  absolute  is  on  the 
point  of  being  superseded  by  the  negative  consciousness 
of  limitation.     She  is  the    abortion,  the   mere  negative 
side  of  the  higher  wisdom,  at  first  wholly  formless,  then 
wrought  to  a  form  in  substance,  but  not  in  knowledge, 
assuming  a  definite,  but  unreal  consciousness ;  the  nega- 
tive   sense   of  limitation,  indicated   by   the   suffering   or 
passion,  having   a   distinct   and    definite    presence,   the 
positive   side   assuming   the   form  only  of  an  indefinite 
longing   after   the   unknown;    this   last,  the   only  germ 
remaining   of  true   knowledge,  being   derived  from   the 
same  Christ  to  whose  revelation  is  ascribed  the  higher 
enlightenment   of  the   -ZEons.     This   last  representation 
seems  intended  to  exhibit,  in  the  form  of  an  ideal  arche- 
type, that  which  was  historically  realised  in  the  state  of 
the  world  before  the  Christian  revelation — a  fallen  world, 


LECT.  xn.     VALENTINITS  AND  THE  VALENTINIANS.      189 

with  the  material  and  the  sensual  predominant,  yet  with 
a  dim  consciousness  of  a  relation  to  God,  and  a  partial 
illumination  by  the  Divine  Word.  The  mission  of  the 
second  Christ,  the  Saviour,  to  impart  knowledge  to  Acha- 
moth  and  separate  her  from  her  passions,  is  the  counter- 
part of  the  mission  of  the  first  Christ  (or,  according  to 
another  version,  of  the  f'Opos),  to  separate  the  first  2o(/>ta 
from  her  hOv^a-is.  The  whole  theory  may  be  described 
in  general  terms  as  a  development,  in  allegorical  language, 
of  the  pantheistic  hypothesis  which  in  its  outline  had 
been  previously  adopted  by  Basilides.  All  finite  existence, 
first  spiritual  and  then  material,  though  seeming  to  have 
separate  and  substantial  being,  is  but  a  mode  of  the  exis- 
tence of  the  absolute ;  becoming  gradually  more  definite 
and  concrete  as  it  becomes  more  limited  and  further 
removed  from  the  primitive  absolute.  Eeal  existence, 
according  to  this  hypothesis,  has  no  distinctive  attributes, 
not  even  self-consciousness.  With  the  first  development 
of  consciousness  begins  the  unreal,  a  seeming  relation  of 
subject  to  object,  becoming  more  unreal  as  the  develop- 
ment increases  in  definiteness,  and  finally  culminating  in 
the  grossness  of  an  apparent  matter,  opposed  to  thought 
in  nature  as  well  as  in  relation.1  This  representation, 
like  most  others  of  the  kind,  is,  I  fear,  not  transparently 
intelligible  ;  but  it  is  at  least  as  clear  and  as  satisfactory 
as  any  other  of  the  attempted  solutions  of  the  insoluble 
problem,  How  can  the  absolute  give  birth  to  the  relative, 
unity  to  plurality,  good  to  evil  ? 

The  third  portion  of  the  romance  treats  of  the  forma- 
tion and  redemption  of  the  visible  world,  which,  in  con- 
formity to  the  author's  general  plan,  presents  an  imperfect 
counterpart  of  the  previous  sketch  of  the  celestial  world. 

1  Cf.  Baur,  Die  Chr.  Gnosisp.  167. 


190  EGYPTIAN  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  xn. 

Achamoth,  the  second  Sophia,  as  the  highest  being  outside 
the  Pleroma,  takes  the  place  of  Bythus,  the  supreme 
Father ;  and  her  offspring,  the  Demiurge,  corresponds  to 
Nous,  the  first  and  only  begotten  .ZEon;1  his  nature  how- 
ever, as  we  have  already  noticed,  being  not  spiritual,  but 
only  animal.  This  animal  Demiurge  is  the  frainer  of  the 
visible  world  out  of  the  unorganised  matter  whose  origin 
has  been  already  described ;  he  also  brings  into  existence 
two  classes  of  men,  the  animal,  similar  to  himself,  of 
whom  he  is  called  the  Father,  and  the  purely  material,  of 
whom  he  is  called  the  Maker  (fypiovpyos).  He  also 
framed  the  seven  heavens  (i.  e.,  as  in  Basilides,  the  spheres 
of  the  seven  planets),  which  are  regarded  as  angels,  form- 
ing the  Hebdomad,  and,  with  the  addition  of  his  mother 
Achamoth,  the  Ogdoad,  after  the  likeness  of  the  celestial 
Ogdoad  of  the  jiEons.2  In  this  work  of  formation,  the 
Demiurge  wrought  blindly,  as  the  instrument  of  his 
mother  Achamoth,  ignorant  of  her  existence  and  ignorant 
of  the  celestial  forms  which  he  imitated,  believing  himself 
to  be  the  source  of  all  things,  the  one  and  only  God.  But, 
though  ignorant  of  the  higher  spiritual  world,  the  Demi- 
urge is  nevertheless  the  maker  of  a  lower  world  of  spiritual 
existences,  namely,  evil  spirits ;  the  Devil,  the  prince 
of  this  world,3  and  his  angels,  who  are  formed  from  the 
grief  of  Achamoth,  and,  as  being  spiritual,  surpass  their 
maker  in  knowledge,  being  cognisant  of  the  higher  spiri- 
tual system  of  which  he,  as  being  merely  animal,  is 
ignorant.  The  Devil,  as  the  prince  of  this  world,  has  his 

1  Kai  avr}]v  fjitv  evelK6virova.op6.Tov  seem  that  the  Demiurge  himself  pre- 
irarpbs   rerypiiKevai,   p/i]  yivu>ffKo^v{\v  sided   over     one    of     the    planetary 
uTrb    rov   Srifuovpyov,    rovrov  8e   rov  spheres ;  probably,  like   the  Abraxas 
povoyevovs  vlov,  ruv  Se  XOITT&V  Altibviav  of  Basilides,   he  represents  the   sun- 
rovs    virb   rovrwv    [TOJ$TOU]   yeyovoras  god.     The  whole  of  this  part  of  the 
apxayye\ovs    re   Kal   ayyehovs,   Iren.  theory  is  borrowed  from  Basilides. 

i.  5.  1 .  3  KoffjuoHpdrcop,  Iren.  i.   5.  4. 

2  From    this    account    it   would 


LECT.  xii.     VALENTINUS  AND  THE  VALENTINIANS.       191 

residence  in  the  lower  world;  the  Demiurge  in  the 
heavens ;  and  the  mother  Acharnoth  in  the  region  above 
the  heavens,  between  them  and  the  Pleroma.1 

In  the  formation  of  man,  the  Demiurge  is  described  as 
having  first  given  him  a  body,  formed  of  an  invisible  and 
transcendental  matter,  and  as  having  breathed  into  this 
body  the  breath  of  life,  i.e.  the  animal  soul.  Afterwards, 
the  gross  sensible  body  of  flesh  was  added,  which  is  figura- 
tively signified  by  the  coats  of  skins  in  which  God  is  said 
to  have  clothed  Adam  and  Eve.  Thus  framed  however, 
man  had  but  two  natures,  the  animal  and  the  material  : 
the  spiritual  principle  was  infused  into  a  select  few  from 
a  higher  source,  through  the  mother  Achamoth,  who 
infused  into  the  Demiurge,  without  his  knowledge,  the 
spiritual  offspring  which  she  had  brought  forth  from  the 
vision  of  the  angelic  glory,  and  which  he  unwittingly 
communicated  to  the  souls  of  those  whom  he  created.2 

The  Valentinian  theory  thus  recognises  three  distinct 
classes  of  men,  the  material,  the  animal,  and  the  spiritual, 
typified  by  the  three  sons  of  Adam,  Cain,  Abel,  and  Seth, 
each  of  whom  represents  separately  one  of  the  three 
natures  which  in  Adam  were  united  in  one  person.3  The 
work  of  redemption  in  Valentinus  as  in  Basilides  consisted 
in  the  separation  of  the  spiritual  from  the  inferior  portions 
of  man's  nature;  but  Valentinus  allowed  a  second  and 
inferior  kind  of  redemption  to  the  second  class  of  men, 
the  psychical  or  animal,  whose  nature  was  incapable  of 
being  exalted  to  the  purely  spiritual  life  of  the  Pleroma, 
but  who  might  be  capable  of  dwelling  with  the  Demiurge 
in  the  region  without.  For  the  material  or  carnal  portion 
of  mankind  there  was  no  redemption ;  and  hence  they 
maintained  that  Christ  when  he  came  into  the  world  took 

1  Iren.  i.  5.  4.  3  Cf.  Harvey,  on  Irenseus,  i.  7.  5, 

2  Irenseus,  i.  5.  6.  Mass.  (vol.  I.  p.  65). 


192  EGYPTIAN  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  xn. 

not  on  Him  a  body  of  flesh,1  but  assumed  those  portions 
of  humanity  only  which  were  capable  of  redemption, 
namely,  a  seeming  body  given  by  the  Demiurge,  composed 
of  the  same  substance  as  the  animal  soul,  prepared  in  a 
marvellous  manner  so  as  to  be,  like  the  material  body, 
visible  and  tangible  and  capable  of  suffering,  and  a  spi- 
ritual nature  bestowed  by  Achamoth.  At  the  end  of  all 
things,  when  the  redemption  of  the  spiritual  seed  shall  be 
complete,  Achamoth,  the  mother  of  the  spiritual  seed  on 
earth,  shall  be  received  within  the  Pleroma  and  united  to 
the  Saviour  (a  perversion  of  the  Scriptural  figure  of  the 
marriage  of  Christ  with  the  Church) ;  the  spiritual  seed, 
by  whom  are  meant  the  initiated  Gnostics,  shall  also  enter 
into  the  Pleroma  and  be  united  to  the  angels  attendant  on 
the  Saviour.  Without  the  Pleroma,  in  the  region  previously 
occupied  by  Achamoth,  there  shall  be  a  second  kingdom, 
that  of  the  Demiurge  or  father  of  the  animal  race  of  men, 
who  shall  give  rest  to  the  souls  of  his  own  children,  the 
men  of  animal  nature,  i.e.  the  ordinary  Christians  of  the 
Church,  including  probably  also  religious  Jews  and  all 
who  worshipped  the  Creator  of  the  world  as  their  God.2 
The  material  race  of  men,  and  all  else  that  is  material, 
being  incapable  of  salvation,  shall  be  consumed  with  fire, 
and  utterly  cease  to  exist.3 

The  exact  views  of  the  Valentinians  concerning  the 
nature  of  Christ  by  whom  this  redemption  was  accom- 
plished, are  not  very  clearly  expressed ;  but  if  we  may 
judge  from  some  incidental  notions,  as  well  as  from  the 

1  In  order  to  separate  Christ  en-  '  Valentinus,'  XVII.  p.  37.    The  V\IKOI 
tirely  from  connection  with  the  flesh,  would  in   like   manner  be  generally 
the  Valentinians,  or  at  least  some  of  represented  by  the  heathens,  though 
them,   maintained   of    the    psychical  these  also  would  include  some  few  of 
Christ,    elvai   rovrov   rbv   Sia    Mapias  the    higher   classes.      Cf.    Heracleon 
SioSetWi/Tct,  KaQdnep  vSup  5to  <TO>\T?J/OS;  in  Origen,    In  loann.  t.  xiii.  c.   16; 
Iren.  i.  7.  2.  Neander,  Ch.  Hist.  II.  p.  85  (Bohn). 

2  Cf.    Moller     in     Herzog,    Art.  s  Irenseus,  i.  cc.  6, 7. 


LECT.  xii.     VALENTINUS  AND   THE  VALENTINIANS.    193 

whole  analogy  of  the  system,  we  may  conclude  that  they 
regarded  him  as  the  son  of  the  Demiurge  (thus  answering 
to  the  .ZEon  Christ  of  the  Pleroma,  who  is  an  emanation 
from  Nous),  and  as  having  derived  from  his  Father  a 
psychical  nature  con  substantial 1  with  that  of  the  Demi- 
urge himself,  but  having  also  a  spiritual  nature  whereby 
He  is  superior  to  his  Father.  The  source  of  this  spiritual 
nature  seems  to  have  been  variously  stated  by  different 
disciples  of  the  school.  According  to  some,  it  was  im- 
parted by  Sophia  Achamoth,  the  mother  of  the  spiritual 
seed  on  earth ;  according  to  others,  it  was  given  by  the 
Saviour,  the  combined  production  of  all  the  2Eons,  who 
descended  upon  the  psychical  Jesus  at  his  baptism,  and 
left  him  before  his  passion.2  Some  seem  to  have  com- 
bined these  two  theories,  attributing  to  the  Eedeemer  a 
threefold  nature  :  the  psychical,  derived  from  the  Demi- 
urge ;  the  spiritual  from.  Achamoth ;  and  the  celestial 
nature  of  the  Saviour,  who  descended  from  above,  to  which 
they  added  a  fourth  element,  the  marvellous  constitution 
of  his  psychical  body,  so  as  to  have  the  attributes  without 
the  reality  of  matter ;  and  by  this  addition  they  succeeded 
in  finding,  in  the  compound  nature  of  Christ,  a  fanciful 
resemblance  to  the  Tetrad,  the  first  and  mystical  member 

1  Cf.  Irenseus,  i.  5.  4,  speaking  of  Iren&us  I.  p*.  49. 

the  invisible  body  and  psychical  life  2  That  these  two  views  were  some- 
supposed  to  have  been  given  by  the  times  held  separately,  may  be  inferred 
Demiurge  to  the  first  man,  Kal  €t«<W  from  Hippolytus,  vi.  35,  who  gives  the 
/uei/  rbv  {i\ucbv  vTrdpXfiv  trapairX'tiaiov  first  alone.  That  the  two  in  combina- 
jueV,  a\\'  oi>x  6fj.oovffiov  r<p  0e<£.  tion  were  held  by  some  of  the  Valen- 
Kaff  6/j.otci}(riv  Se  T&V  tyvxiKtv  K.T.A.  tinians,  is  stated  by  Irenseus,  i.  7.  2. 
From  this  we  may  infer  that  the  According  to  those  who  held  this 
psychical  nature  was  regarded  by  latter  view,  the  Soter  was  supposed 
Valentinus  as  bp-oo-baiov  with  the  to  have  left  Jesus  when  he  was 
Demiurge.  The  same  word  is  used,  brought  before  Pilate  (Irenseus,  I.  c.), 
i.  5.  1,  of  the  spiritual  nature,  as  cog-  while  the  pneumatic  element  departed 
nate  to  that  of  Sophia  Achamoth.  with  the  words  Tldrep,  ets  x^P**5  ffov 
This  may  be  noted  as  an  early  use  of  irapari9e/j.ai  TO  irvev^d  pov,  Luko 
the  word  afterwards  so  important  in  xxiii.  46.  Cf.  Orig.  in  loann.  x.  19; 
the  Arian  controversy:  Cf.  Harvey's  Neander,  Ch.Hist.  II.  p.  91. 

0 


194  EGYPTIAN  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  xn. 

of  the  Pleroma.  In  this  complex  form,  the  Christology  of 
the  Yalentinians  exhibits  a  curious  combination  of  the 
Docetic  and  Ebionite  hypotheses ;  the  psychical  immaterial 
body  attributed  to  our  Lord  being  characteristic  of  the 
former  of  these  heresies,  while  the  separation  of  the 
person  of  Jesus  from  that  of  the  Saviour  is  identical  with 
the  alternative  assumption  of  the  latter.  The  general 
philosophical  theory  which  gave  rise  to  these  assumptions 
— that  of  the  incompatibility  between  the  Divine  Nature 
and  the  material  body — might  have  been  satisfied  by  the 
adoption  of  either  separately  ;  but  the  union  of  the  two  is 
in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  the  philosophy  of  Yalen- 
tinus,  whose  exaggerated  Platonism,  carrying  out  the 
relation  of  idea  and  imitation  in  every  successive  stage 
of  existence,  acknowledged  no  less  than  three  Christs,  a 
first  for  the  redemption  (i.e.  the  enlightenment)  of  the 
celestial  JEons ;  a  second  for  the  redemption  of  Achamoth, 
the  Wisdom  without  the  Pleroma ;  and  a  third,  born  into 
the  world  for  the  redemption  of  mankind.1 

The  philosophical  teaching  which  is  embodied  in  this 
last  portion  of  the  Yalentinian  allegory  is  of  the  same 
tendency  with  that  of  the  former  portions,  though  the 
tendency  is  in  some  degree  checked  by  other  considera- 
tions, and  does  not  attain  to  its  full  development.  As  the 
thought  which  underlies  his  whole  theory  is  substantially 
that  of  the  Indian  pantheism,  according  to  which  all 
finite  existence  is  an  error  and  an  unreality,  so  his  scheme 
of  redemption  logically  carried  out  should  have  resulted  in 
the  absorption  of  all  finite  and  relative  existence  into  the 
bosom  of  the  infinite  and  absolute.  The  remains  of  the 
Christian  influence  which  Valentinus  had  received  during 
his  communion  with  the  Church,  appear  to  have  prevented 
the  development  of  his  doctrine  to  this  extreme  conse- 

1  Cf.  Hippolytus,  Eef.  Ear.  vi.  36. 


LECT.  xii.     VALENTINUS  AND   THE  VALENTINIANS.    195 

quence,  and  perhaps  in  so  eclectic  a  thinker  it  would  be 
hardly  natural  to  expect  a  complete  logical  development 
of  any  single  idea.  Yet  the  germ  of  such  a  conse- 
quence may  be  traced,  though  it  does  not  ripen  into  its 
mature  fruit.  Eedemption,  in  the  highest  sense,  is  re- 
served for  the  spiritual  element  alone ;  all  those  powers 
and  operations  of  the  soul  which  are  directed  to  the  rela- 
tive and  the  finite  are  destined  to  fall  entirely  away,  and 
nothing  remains  immortal  but  the  faculty  of  immediate 
intuition  whose  object  is  the  absolute  and  infinite.1  In 
the  language  of  Aristotle,  whose  teaching  this  part  of  the 
theory  closely  repeats,  the  active  intellect,  the  Divine 
element  in  man,  is  alone  immortal ;  the  passive  intellect, 
to  which  belongs  memory  and  self-consciousness,  is  perish- 
able and  will  be  cast  aside.2  Such  a  destiny  as  this,  an 
indestructibility  of  the  intellect  rather  than  an  immortality 
of  the  soul,  cannot  be  called  a  personal  immortality  at  all ; 
and  Yalentinus,  in  accepting  the  theory,  is  at  least  so  far 
more  consistent  than  his  master  that  he  expressly  denies 
to  the  highest  order  of  mankind  the  one  attribute  on 
which  personality  depends,  and  which  holds  a  foremost 
place  in  Aristotle's  teaching,  that  of  free  will.  His  view 
of  the  nature  and  destiny  of  mankind  has  been  not  inaptly 
likened  to  the  supralapsarian  theory  of  predestination.3 
Some  men  are  born  into  the  world  as  spiritual,  the 
children  of  God,  and  these  are  incapable  of  falling  away, 
and  inevitably  destined  to  salvation;  others,  equally  with- 
out their  own  choice,  have  a  material  nature,  and  these 
by  a  like  necessity  are  destined  to  destruction.4  A  kind 
of  choice  is  permitted  only  to  the  intermediate  race,  the 
psychical  men,  who  are  capable  of  inclining  to  good  or 

1  Cf.   Neander,  Church  Hist.   II.       Griech.  II.  2.  pp.  441,  465. 

p.  84  (Bohn).  3  Harvey's  Irenceus  I.  p.  cxli. 

2  De  Anima   i.    4,    iii.    5.      Cf.  4  Irenseus,  i.  6,  2. 
Neander,     I.    c. ;    Zeller,    Phil,   der 

o  2 


196  EGYPTIAN  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  xn. 

evil,  but  these  have  no  admission  into  the  Pleroma ;  the 
very  fact  of  their  freedom,  we  might  almost  say  of  their 
personality,  makes  them  incapable  of  redemption  in  the 
highest  sense  of  the  term.  A  doctrine  like  this  is  not 
explicitly  pantheistic,  but  it  escapes  from  pantheism  only 
by  being  inconsistent  with  itself.  The  moral  results  of 
this  teaching,  in  the  disciples  at  least,  if  not  in  the 
masters,  were,  if  Irenpeus  may  be  accepted  as  a  witness, 
pernicious  in  the  extreme.  The  spiritual  man,  according 
to  their  teaching,  was  incapable  of  corruption  by  any  course 
of  life  whatever.  As  gold,  they  said,  when  lying  buried 
in  mud,  does  not  lose  the  nature  of  gold,  but  remains 
distinct  from  the  mud,  so  the  spiritual  man,  in  whatever 
course  of  action  he  may  be  engaged,  retains  his  spiritual 
nature  and  is  incapable  of  deterioration.  '  Hence,'  says 
Irenseus,  '  the  most  perfect  among  these  commit  without 
fear  all  forbidden  acts.  They  are  indifferent  about  eating 
meats  offered  to  idols,  maintaining  that  they  are  not 
contaminated  thereby  ;  they  are  the  first  to  attend  at  every 
Gentile  feast  in  honour  of  idols,  and  some  of  them  do  not 
abstain  from  the  sanguinary  and  abominable  exhibitions 
of  combats  of  wild  beasts  and  gladiators.  Some  surrender 
themselves  insatiably  to  carnal  pleasures,  saying  that  they 
give  to  the  flesh  the  things  of  the  flesh,  and  to  the  spirit 
the  things  of  the  spirit.'1  No  doubt  this  description, 
which  in  the  original  is  carried  into  further  details,  was 
applicable  only  to  the  worst  portion  of  the  sect ;  but  the 
character  of  the  theory  is  unhappily  such  that  it  may  be 
applied  in  practice  with  equal  facility  to  the  most  rigid 
asceticism  or  the  most  abandoned  profligacy. 

Yalentinus  was  for  a  time  the  most  popular  of  the 
Gnostic  teachers,  and  became,  through  his  numerous 
disciples,  the  founder  of  the  largest  number  of  subordi- 

1  Irenseus,  i.  6.  2,  3. 


LECT.  xn.     VALENTINUS  AND   THE   VALENTINIANS.    197 

nate  schools.  Secundus,  Ptolemseus,  Marcus,  Colarbasus, 
Heracleon,  Theodotus,  and  Alexander  were  distinguished 
as  leaders  of  Yalentinian  schools ; 1  and  Bardesanes,  whom 
we  have  already  noticed  as  one  of  the  Syrian  Gnostics, 
was  for  a  time  a  disciple  of  Valentinus,  though  he  after- 
wards left  him  and  wrote  against  some  of  his  opinions.2 
The  most  celebrated  of  the  Valentinians  were  Ptolemseus, 
Marcus,  and  Heracleon.  Ptolemseus,  as  we  have  before 
noticed,  was  the  Gnostic  whose  writings  principally  gave 
occasion  to  the  refutation  by  St.  Irenseus.  There  is  still 
extant,  preserved  by  Epiphanius,3  a  letter  of  his  addressed 
to  a  lady  named  Flora,  whom  he  desired  to  bring  over  to 
his  belief.  In  this  letter  he  discusses  the  question  of  the 
origin  of  the  world  and  of  the  Law  of  Moses,  and  combats 
the  opinions  of  those  who  attributed  them  to  the  Supreme 
God,  as  well  as  the  opposite  extreme  of  those  who  main- 
tained that  they  proceeded  from  an  evil  being.  Ptolemseus 
maintains  an  intermediate  position,  asserting  that  the  law 
is  partly  of  Divine,  partly  of  human  origin ;  some  of  its 
precepts  resting  merely  on  the  personal  authority  of 
Moses  or  of  the  elders  who  were  associated  with  him  (a 
conclusion  which  reminds  us  of  what  we  have  heard  of 
late  concerning  '  the  dark  patches  of  human  passion  and 
error  which  form  a  partial  crust  upon3  Holy  Scrip- 
ture),4 while  others  are  of  a  higher  inspiration.  The 
Divine  portion  however  of  the  law  he  ascribes,  according 
to  the  general  theory  of  the  Gnostic  school,  not  to  the 
Supreme  God,  but  to  an  intermediate  being,  the  Creator 
of  the  world,  whose  goodness  falls  far  short  of  absolute 
perfection.  In  this  way  Ptolemseus  accounts  for  the  im- 
perfections which  he  professes  to  find  even  in  the  Divine 

1  Matter,  II.  p.  101.  4  Wilson  in  Essays  and  Reviews, 

2  Eusebius,  H.E.  iv.  30.  p.  177. 
8  Hcer.  xxxiii.  3-7. 


198  EGYPTIAN  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  xn. 

portion  of  Scripture,  while  at  the  same  time,  by  denying 
that  the  Supreme  God  is  the  Maker   of  the  world,  he 
ingeniously  evades  any  argument  that  may  be  drawn  from 
the  analogy  of  revelation  to  the  constitution  and  course  of 
nature.     Marcus,  another  disciple  of  Yalentinus,  and  the 
founder  of  the  subordinate  sect  of  Marcosians,  seems  to 
have  been  the  conjuror  and  wonder-worker  of  the  school, 
bearing  somewhat  the  same  relation  to  the  Trvsv/narifcol  or 
spiritual  men  of  the  Yalentinians'  doctrine  that  the  modern 
6  spiritualist,'  the  necromancer  who  juggles  with  rapping 
spirits  and  dancing  tables,  bears   to  the  contemplative 
mystic.     Marcus  figures  in  the  writings  of  Irenseus  a,s  a 
clever  charlatan,  deluding  weak  minds,  especially  women, 
by  his  tricks  of  magic,  and  employing  the  influence  thus 
gained  for  profligate  purposes.1     He  taught  a  system  of 
theosophy  agreeing  in  the  main  with  that  of  Yalentinus, 
but  with  a  difference  in  illustration  and  imagery.     His 
favourite  vehicle  of  illustration  (or  obscuration)  was  the 
alphabet  with  the  numerical  powers  of  its  several  letters, 
and  his  speculations   in  this   respect   bear    considerable 
affinity  to    those   of  the   Jewish   Kabbala,  which,  as  a 
native  of  Palestine,  he  may  possibly  have  known.2     His 
methods   of    finding   mystical   meanings   in   each   letter 
of  which  a  word  is  composed,  and  again  in  the  letters 
composing  the  name  of  that  letter  (e.g.  the  five  letters 
in  the  word  Delta),  and  so  on,  are  given  in  detail  by 
Irenseus.3      His    followers   are   accused  of  forging   apo- 
cryphal Scriptures  in  support  of  their  doctrines,  and  an 
anecdote  cited  by  Irenseus  from  an   apocryphal   Gospel 
employed  by  them  is  still  found  in  the  extant  work  called 
the  Arabic  Gospel  of  the  Infancy,  which,  though  itself  of 

1  Irenseus,  i.  13.  .    II.  p.  107  ;  Neander,  Church  Hist.  II. 

2  See  Harvey's  Irenaus  I.  p.  159.       p.  104. 

Fortlie  probable  Palestinian  origin  of  s  Irenaeiis,  i.  14  sec[. 

Marcus,  see  Matter,  Hist,  du  Gnost. 


LECT.  xii.     VALEXTINUS  AND   THE   VALENTINIANS.    199 

later  origin,  may  have  been  partly  taken  from  this  source .* 
Heracleon,2  another  disciple  of  Yalentinus,  has  acquired 
a  reputation  as  the  earliest-known  commentator  on  a 
canonical  Gospel.3  He  wrote  an  exposition  of  the  Gospel 
of  St.  John,  portions  of  which  he  endeavoured,  by  means 
of  allegorical  interpretations,  to  wrest  to  the  support  of 
Gnostic  theories.  Fragments  of  this  commentary  are 
cited  in  the  work  of  Origeii  on  the  same  Gospel.4  Yet 
though  wild  and  fanciful  when  carried  away  by  his  Gnostic 
theosophy  (as  may  be  seen  in  his  exposition  of  the  dis- 
course of  our  Lord  with  the  woman  of  Samaria,  which  he  , 
regards  as  a  figurative  representation  of  the  relation  of 
the  TrvsufjLariKol  to  the  Yalentinian  2Ja>T^/>),  Heracleon 
seems  in  other  places  to  have  exercised  a  sound  judgment, 
and  to  have  produced  an  exposition  more  simple  and 
natural  than  that  of  his  censor,  Origen.5  His  philo- 
sophical theory  is  said  to  have  been  nearly  the  same  as 
that  of  his  master  Yalentinus.6 

The  fragments  of  this  commentary  of  Heracleon,  and 
the  epistle  of  Ptolemseus  to  Flora,  are  the  most  considerable 
literary  remains  of  the  Yalentinian  school  which  have 
come  down  to  modern  times.  In  addition  to  these  there 
are  extant  a  considerable  extract  from  a  work  by  an 
anonymous  member  of  the  sect,  cited  by  Epiphanius,7 

1  Cf.   Tischendorf,    Evang.   Apoc.  fragments  of  Heracleon  are  collected  in 

Proleg.  §  viii.  the    appendix    to   Massuet's  Irenceus 

•  Hippolytus   (vi.    35)    mentions  (p.  1291,  seq.  Migne). 
Heracleon  (with  Ptolemseus)  as  belong-  5  Neander,   Ch.  Hist.  II.  pp.  95, 

ing  to  the  Italian  school  of  the  Valen-  97. 

tinians.  Matter  (II.  p.  113),  without  6  Pseudo-Tertullian,    De   Prcsscr. 

naming  any  authority,  speaks  of  him  c.    49      '  Extitit  prseterea  Heracleon 

as  teaching  at  Alexandria.  alter   haereticus,   qui   cum   Valentino 

3  Ueberweg,  Gesch.   der  Phil.  II.  paria  sentit' 

p.  35.  7  Har.  xxxi.  5,  6.   That  this  frag- 

4  He  also  appears  to  have  written  ment  is  not,  as  Blondel  supposed,  the 
a  commentary  on  St.  Luke,  if  we  may  work  of  Valentinus  himself,  but  of  an 
judge  from  the  citation  of  Clem.  Alex.  anonymous    disciple,     see     Massuet, 
Strom,  iv.  9,  p.  595  (Potter).     All  the  Diss.  Prcev.  i.  §  10. 


200  EGYPTIAN  GNOSTICISM.  LECT.  xii. 

and  a  few  fragments  of  the  writings  of  Valentinus  him- 
self, preserved  by  Clement  of  Alexandria  and  Origen ;  to 
which  must  now  be  added   the    citations   from  a  work, 
possibly  of  Yalentimis  himself,  made  by  Hippolytus.1     It 
was  at  one  time  supposed  that  there  was  still  in  existence 
an  entire  work  of  Yalentinus   in   a   Coptic   translation. 
Tertullian,  in  his  treatise  against  the  Yalentinians  (c.  2), 
speaks  of  the  Valentinian  Sophia  in  a  manner  which  has 
led  some  critics  to  imagine  that  Yalentinus  wrote  a  work 
with  this  title ;  and  a  Coptic  MS  in  the  British  Museum 
entitled  HI&TLS  So^ta  was  at  one  time  supposed  to  be  the 
work  in  question.2      Against  this  supposition  however  it 
may  be  urged  that  there  is  no  satisfactory  evidence  that 
Yalentinus  ever  wrote  such  a  work,  the  interpretation  of 
Tertullian  being  very  questionable;3  and  secondly,  that 
the  aforesaid   MS,   which   has   recently   been   published 
with  a  Latin   translation,  contains  internal  evidence  to 
show  that  it  does  not  belong  to  the  Yalentinian.  school. 
A  recent  examination  of  this  work  by  Kostlin  seems  to 
establish  conclusively  that  the  doctrine  which  it  teaches 
is  widely  different  from  that  of  Yalentinus;4  and  it  is  at 
least  more  probable  that  it  belongs  to  a  late  modification 
of  the  Ophite  heresy,  and  was  written  not  earlier  than  the 
middle  of  the  third  century.5 

The  system  of  Yalentinus,  like  that  of  Basilides,  is  in 
principle  pantheistic,  which  is  indeed  the  tendency  and 

1  Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  ii.  8,  20,  p.  jnade  by  Woide.     Cf.   Matter,  Hist. 
448,  488 ;  iii.  7, 13,  p.  538,  603 ;  vi.  6,  p.  du  Gnosticisme  II.  p.  39.     The  work 
7 67 ;  Pseudo-Origen,  Dial.de  Recta  Fide  was    published    by  Petermann,   with 
sect,  iv  (I.  p.  840,  De  la  Hue).  These  a    Latin   translation   by    Schwartze. 
fragments  are  collected  in  the  Appen-  Berlin,  1850,  1853. 

clix  to  Massuet's  edition  of  Irenseus.  3  Cf.  Massuet,  Diss.  Pr&v.  inlren. 

The  extracts  in  Hippolytus,  vi.  29-37,  i.  §  9. 

are  supposed  by  Bunsen  (Hippol.  I.  4  See    Kostlin,     Das     Gnostische 

p.  65)  to  be  from  the  Sophia  of  Valen-  System  des  Buches  ULO-TIS  2o<j>ta,  in 

tinus.  Theol.  Jahrb.  Tub.  1854,  p.  185. 

2  This  conjecture   was   originally  5  Kostlin,  pp.  189,  194. 


LECT.  xii.     VALENTINUS  AND   THE   VALES TINIANS.    201 

the  danger  of  every  system  of  philosophy  which  aspires  to 
solve  the  mystery  of  the  origin  of  derived  existence  from 
one  absolute  principle.  To  this  pantheistic  conception 
both  the  Platonism  and  the  Judaism  of  the  author's 
Alexandrian  studies  are  made  subordinate,  as  well  as 
some  minor  details  which  may  possibly  have  been  directly 
taken  from  other  sources.  Thus  the  doctrine  of  emana- 
tions, though  common  to  the  Persian  and  the  Indian 
philosophy,  appears  in  Valentinus  in  a  form  which,  though 
Indian  in  its  pantheistic  principle  and  method,  yet 
more  resembles  the  dualistic  Persian  scheme  in  some  of 
its  subordinate  particulars.  The  Jewish  Kabbala,  in  which 
this  portion  of  the  Persian  philosophy  was  adapted  to  a 
monotheistic,  or  rather  to  a  pantheistic  assumption,  offers 
in  this  respect  the  nearest  resemblance  to  Yalentinianism  ; 
and,  were  we  quite  certain  of  its  chronological  priority, 
we  should  have  no  hesitation  in  naming  this  as  the 
channel  through  which  the  Persian  Amshaspands  and 
Izeds  became  the  source  of  the  Yalentinian  MonsJ-  As 
it  is,  we  cannot  help  regarding  the  resemblance  between 
the  two  systems  as  one  of  the  data  for  forming  an  opinion 
on  this  controverted  chronological  question ;  and  the  use 
made  of  the  Hebrew  language  by  some  of  the  disciples  of 
Yalentinus,  if  not  by  the  master  himself,2  seems  to  point 

1  Massuet   (Diss.   Prcsv.  in  Iren.  this  time,  and  was  partly  known  to 

i.§  21)  denies  on  chronological  grounds  some    of    the     Gnostics,    than    that 

the  influence  of  the  Jewish  Kabbala  Gnostic  doctrines  were  copied  by  Jews 

on   the   Valentinian  system  ;  but  he  in  the  ninth  or  thirteenth  century, 
perhaps  goes  too  far,  when  he  denies  2  On  the  employment  of  Hebrew 

that  there  is  any  trace  in  the  early  terms  by  the  Marcosians,  as  well  as  on 

Fathers  of  the  Kabbalistic  trifling  with  some   points   of  affinity  between  the 

the    letters    of    the    alphabet.      The  Kabbala  and  the  Valentinian  ^Eons, 

theories  of  Marcus  recorded  by  Ire-  see  above,  Lecture  III,  p.  41  seq.     On 

nseus,  i.e.  14-17,  though  not  expressly  the  Aramaic  names  of  the  ^Eons  in 

referred  to  the  Kabbalists,  are  Kab-  Epiphanius,  which  perhaps  were  not 

balistic  in  character ;  and  it  is  on  the  due  to  Valentinus  himself,  see  a  note 

whole  perhaps  more  probable  that  a  in  Lecture  XI,  p.  176. 
secret  Kabbalistic  teaching  existed  at 


202  EGYPTIAN  GNOSTICISM.  LECT.  xn. 

to  the  existence  of  Kabbalistic  doctrines  in  a  traditional 
form,  if  not  in  written  documents,  through  which  the 
Palestinian  or  Pantheistic  form  of  Jewish  theosophy  may 
have  combined  with  the  Alexandrian  or  Platonic  form  in 
the  production  of  the  Yalentinian  hybrid. 


LECT.  xni.        ASIATIC   GNOSTICISM— MARCION.  203 


LECTUBE  XIII. 

ASIATIC    GNOSTICISM — MAECION. 

THE  third  great  geographical  division  of  Gnosticism,  that 
of  Asia  Minor,  so  classified  from  the  country  of  its  most 
distinguished  representative,  Marcion  of  Pontus,  differs 
in  many  important  points  from  the  other  systems ;  yet,  as 
regards  its  historical  appearance,  it  is  introduced  to  us 
in  the  first  instance,  apparently  as  a  mere  offshoot  from 
the  Gnosis  of  Syria.  We  are  told  that  the  predecessor  of 
Marcion  was  one  Cerdon,  a  Syrian,1  who  came  to  Borne 
during  the  pontificate  of  Hyginus  (A.D.  139-142),  and 
taught  that  the  God  who  was  proclaimed  by  the  Law  and 
the  Prophets  was  not  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
for  that  the  one  was  known  and  the  other  unknown,  and 
that  the  one  was  just  and  the  other  good.  To  him,  it  is 
added,  succeeded  Marcion  of  Pontus,  who  expanded  his 
doctrine.2 

Yet,  notwithstanding  this  coincidence  in  doctrine  as 
well  as  in  the  exaggerated  asceticism  of  his  practical 
teaching,  we  should  form  a  very  imperfect  notion  of 
Marcion  and  his  system  if  we  considered  him  merely  as  a 
disciple  of  the  Syrian  Gnosis  represented  by  Saturninus. 
Though  the  theology  of  Marcion  ultimately  coincided  in 
some  respects  with  that  of  the  earlier  Gnostics,  he  ap- 
proached the  question  from  the  opposite  side,  and  with  a 

1  For  the  Syrian  origin  of  Cerdon,  see  Epiphan,  Hcer.  xli.  1. 

2  Irenseus,  i.  27. 


204  ASIATIC  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  xin. 

widely  different  character  and  training  of  mind.  The 
earlier  Gnostics  were  for  the  most  part  philosophers  who 
approached  Christianity  from  the  side  of  heathen  specu- 
lation, and  endeavoured,  by  means  of  fusion  and  perverted 
interpretation,  to  form  an  eclectic  system  out  of  these 
separate  elements.  Marcion  011  the  other  hand  was 
originally  a  Christian,  contemplating  all  other  religious 
teaching  from  the  Christian  stand-point  as  understood  by 
himself,  and  refusing  all  alliance  with  or  toleration  of 
every  mode  of  thought  which  was  not  in  accordance  with 
this  pattern.  The  earlier  Gnostics  were,  or  attempted 
to  be,  positive  thinkers,  attaining  by  their  own  power  of 
spiritual  intuition  to  a  knowledge  of  Divine  things,  and 
having  thereby  a  gauge  and  criterion  to  which  all  other 
religious  teaching,  that  of  the  Gospel  included,  must  be 
adapted.  Marcion  assumed  the  position  of  a  negative 
thinker,  rejecting  without  compromise  all  that  would  not 
be  reconciled  to  his  supposed  Christian  standard,  but 
making  no  attempt  to  discover  a  higher  philosophical 
truth  under  the  apparently  conflicting  representations. 
Their  method  was  mystical  and  ontological ;  his  was 
rationalistic  and  critical.  They  professed  to  teach  a 
special  wisdom,  accessible  only  to  a  chosen  few ;  he  pro- 
fessed to  teach  a  plain  Christianity,  within  the  reach  of 
all  Christian  men ;  and  though  his  criticisms  ultimately 
carried  him  to  the  threshold  of  the  Gnostic  shrine,  he  did 
not  attempt  to  penetrate  into  its  inner  mysteries. 

Marcion  was  a  native  of  Sinope  in  Pontus,  and  is  said 
to  have  been  the  son  of  the  bishop  of  that  Church  and  to 
have  been  expelled  from  the  Christian  community  by  his 
own  father.1  The  moral  offence  assigned  as  the  cause  of 

1  Epiphan.  Hcer.  xlii.  1.  He  seems  H.  E.  v.  13)  6  VOLVTI\S.     Massuet  (Diss. 

to  hare  at   one  time  been  a  sailor.  in  Iren.'i.  §  135)  thinks  that  this  may 

Tertullian,  Adv.  Mare.  i.  18,  calls  him  be  merely  a  play  on  the  name  of  his 

'  nauclerus  ; '     Ehodon     (in     Euseb.  country,  Pontus. 


LECT.  xin.  MARC  ION.  205 

this  expulsion  is  alien  to  the  character  of  the  man  and  of 
his  teaching,  and  rests  upon  very  doubtful  authority ; l  and 
it  is  not  improbable  that  the  excommunication  may  have 
really  been  due  to  his  errors  of  doctrine,  and  not  to  any 
profligacy  of  conduct.  From  Sinope  he  betook  himself 
to  Rome,  where  he  seems  to  have  become  acquainted  with 
Cerdon  and  to  have  adopted  some  of  his  Syrian  theories ; 
but  he  must  have  done  so  chiefly  because  he  forced  them 
to  adapt  themselves  to  a  system  which  he  had  already 
elaborated  on  different  grounds.  An  anecdote,  in  itself 
highly  probable,  narrated  by  Epiphanius 2  seems  to  show 
that  he  came  to  Eome  with  his  own  theory  already  formed, 
and  probably  hoping  to  find  a  more  favourable  reception 
for  it  in  the  Gentile  capital  than  it  had  met  with  in  the 
more  judaizing  churches  of  Asia.  It  is  said  that  when 
the  presbyters  of  the  Roman  church  refused  to  receive 
him  into  communion,  he  asked  them  what  was  the  mean- 
ing of  our  Lord's  injunction  against  putting  new  wine 
into  old  bottles — evidently  alluding  to  the  antagonism 
which  he  supposed  to  exist  between  the  Old  Testament 
and  the  New.3  Finding  that  they  did  not  adopt  this 
view  and  persevered  in  refusing  to  admit  him  to  com- 
munion, he  determined  to  found  a  separate  church  of  his 
own,  and  joined  himself  for  that  purpose  with  the  Gnostic 
Cerdon. 

The   character   of    Marcion's  own   teaching   may   be 

1  Pseudo-Tertull.  De  Prcescr.  c.  51  thatMarcion  was  for  a  time  admitted 
'  propter  stuprum   cujusdam  virginis  into  communion,  and  gave  a  sum  of 
ab  ecclesise  communicatione  abjectus : '  money  to  the  Church,  which  was  after- 
cf.  Epiphan.  Hcer.  xlii.  1.  But  the  real  wards  rejected  when  he  was  excom- 
Tertullian     says     nothing    of     this  municated.       This  account    may  be 
charge  ;  on  the  contrary,  he  contrasts  reconciled  with  that  of  Epiphanius,  if 
the  offence  of  Apelles  with  the  conti-  we  suppose  it   to  refer  to    his   first 
nence  of  Marcion  ;  De.  Prcescr.  c.  30.  arrival  at  Rome,  before  the  news  of 

2  HCPT.  xlii.  2.  his   excommunication  at  Sjnope   was 

3  Tertullian's  accdunt  (Adv.  Marc.  known, 
iv.  4  ;  De  Prcescr.  c.  30)  seems  to  imply 


206  ASIATIC  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  xm. 

described  as  a  combination  of  rationalism  proper  with 
what  is  now  commonly  known  as  the  'higher  criticism.' 
The  first  element  was  manifested  in  his  rejection  of  the 
entire  Old  Testament,  as  well  as  all  the  evidences  of 
natural  religion  derived  from  the  constitution  of  the 
world,  because  in  both  alike  he  discovered  phenomena 
which  he  considered  to  be  different  from  what  ought  to 
be  expected  from  a  Being  of  perfect  wisdom  and  goodness. 
The  second  was  manifested  in  his  rejection  of  a  large 
portion  of  the  New  Testament,  as  a  corruption  of  what 
he  assumed  to  be  the  pure  doctrines  of  Christianity. 
Among  the  Christian  Scriptures,  Marcion  accepted  only 
ten  of  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,1  whom  he  regarded  as  the 
only  preacher  of  the  true  revelation  of  Christ,  together 
with  a  pretended  original  Gospel,  which  he  asserted  to  be 
that  used  by  St.  Paul  himself  (so  he  interpreted  the 
expression  '  according  to  my  Gospel ' 2)  and  which  was  in 
reality  a  mutilated  copy  of  the  Gospel  according  to  St. 
Luke.3  The  other  books  of  the  New  Testament  he  dis- 
carded, as  the  works  of  judaizing  teachers  who  corrupted 
the  primitive  truth.4  Marcion's  gospel  seems  to  have 
contained  very  few  additions  to  the  canonical  text  of  St. 
Luke,  but  on  the  other  hand  very  considerable  portions 
of  that  text  were  omitted  in  his  recension  as  not  com- 
patible with  his  theory  of  the  Person  of  Christ  and  the 
character  of  Christianity.  All  that  relates  to  the  birth  and 

1  These  were  arranged  by  Mar-       t.  v.  seet.   4 ;   Pseudo-Orig.  Dial,  de 
cion  in  the  following  order :  Galatians,       Recta  Fide,   sect.   1    (p.  807,   De  la 
1,    2    Corinthians,    Komans,     1,     2       Eue). 

Thessalonians,  Ephesians,  Colossians,  s  Cf.  Neander,    Church  Hist.  II. 

Philemon,  Philippians.     Even  these  p.  149. 

were    received   in   a    mutilated    and  4  Cf.     Tertullian,      Adv.      Marc. 

corrupted  form.     The  Pastoral  Epis-  iv.  2,    3.     This    part    of    Marcion's 

ties   were    rejected.      See    Epiphan.  teaching   was    revived  in  the   eigh- 

Hcer.  xlii.  9.  teenth  century  by  Morgan,  the  '  Moral 

2  Eorn.  ii.    16,    xvi.   25   (2  Tim.  Philosopher,' and  again  in  the  present 
ii.  8).      Cf.  Origen.  in  Evang.  loann,  century  by  the  Tubingen  critics. 


LECT.  xiii.  MARCION.  207 

infancy  of  our  Lord,  together  with  the  genealogy,  was 
omitted.1  All  appeals  to  the  writers  of  the  Old  Testament 
as  bearing  witness  to  Christ,  and  passages  that  did  not  tally 
with  the  ascetic  teaching  of  the  critic,  such  as  the  con- 
trast between  our  Lord's  way  of  life  and  that  of  John  the 
Baptist,  and  the  mention  of  those  who  shall  sit  down  (ava- 
K\i6ri(rovTai)  in  the  kingdom  of  God,2  were  remorselessly 
excluded,  as  corruptions  detected  by  the  critical  insight 
of  the  reformer.  Other  passages  were  retained  in  an 
amended  form.  The  words,  '  It  is  easier  for  heaven  and 
earth  to  pass  than  one  tittle  of  the  law  to  fail '  (Luke  xvi. 
17),  became  'It  is  easier  for  heaven  and  earth  and  for 
the  law  and  the  prophets  to  fail,  than  one  tittle  of  the 
words  of  the  Lord.'  c  When  ye  shall  see  Abraham  and 
Isaac  and  Jacob  and  all  the  prophets  in  the  kingdom  of 
God'  (Luke  xiii.  28),  was  transformed  into,  '  When  ye 
shall  see  the  righteous  in  the  kingdom  of  God.'3  The 
perverse  criticism  of  the  Tubingen  school,  whose  mode  of 
dealing  with  Holy  Scriptures  bears  no  small  resemblance 
to  Marcion's  own,  has  endeavoured  of  late  years  to  defend 
the  paradox,  in  part  suggested  by  Semler  and  others,  that 
Marcion's  recension  was  the  original,  the  canonical  text 
the  interpolated  Gospel;4  though  there  is  not  a  scrap  of 

1  Cf.  Irenseus,  i.  27.  2.  Marcion's  De  la  Hue) ;  Theodoret,  H.  F.  i.  24  ; 

Gospel   seems    to    have    commenced  Pseudo-Origen,  Dial.  pp.  823,  869.  See 

with  the  words 'Ei/ €Tet  Tro/re/catSe/cary  Thilo.  Codex  Apocr.N.  T.  p.  403.  For 

Tr\s      ^ye/xoviaj     TijSe/nou      Kaicrapos  some  details  of  Marcion's  alterations  in 

[Pseudo-Orig.    Dial,  de  Eecta  Fide,  St.  Luke  and  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  see 

p.  823  (DelaEue),  adds  yyenovevovTos  Lardner,  Hist,  of  Heretics  c.  x.  §§  35- 

TIOVTIOV      TliXOLTOV       T7JS        'louSoias]        6  53. 

®ebs  /cctTTjAflej/ eis  KaTrepi/aov/J.Tr6\ivrris  2  Luke  vii.  21-35,  xiii.  29. 

TaXtA-aias   Kal    ^v    SiSdffKcav    eV    rots  *  Cf.    Bleek,    Einleitung    in    das 

<ra£/3cwt,  compiled  from  Luke  iii.  l,iv.  N.  T.  pp.  124,  125. 

31,  the  early  part  of  c.  iv,  except  a  4  Semler  imagined  that  St.  Luke's 

few  verses  transposed,  being  omitted  and  Marcion's  Gospel  were  both  later 

on  account   of  the  references  to   the  recensions  of  an  original   text.     He 

0.  T.  Cf.  Tertullian,  Adv.  Marc.  iv.  7  ;  was  followed  by  Schmidt,  who  sug- 

Epiphan.  Har.  xiii.  1 1 ;  Iren.  i.  27,  iii.  gested  that  Marcion's  was  the  original 

10  ;  Origen,  in  loann.  xx.  (IV.  p.  165  gospel.       Ritschl   (Das  Evang.  Mar- 


208  ASIATIC  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  xni. 

historical  evidence  to  show  that  the  mutilated  recension 
was  ever  heard  of  before  Marcion's  time,  and  though  there 
is  positive  evidence  to  show  that  Marcion  must  have 
possessed  and  made  use  of  passages  of  St.  Luke's  original 
Gospel  which  were  omitted  in  his  mutilated  edition.1 

The  circumstance  that  Marcion  approached  the  ques- 
tion from  a  critical,  not  from  a  historical  point  of  view, 
and  chiefly  from  a  persuasion  of  the  contrariety  between 
the  revelations  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  will  serve 
to  account  for  some  of  the  peculiarities  of  his  system  as 
compared  with  those  of  the  other  Gnostics.  The  meta- 
physical element  is  kept  entirely  in  the  background,  and 
large  portions  of  it  disappear  altogether. 

Marcion's  theory  recognises  no  emanations  of  JEons  as 
connecting  links  between  the  Supreme  God  and  the  world, 
for  from  his  point  of  view  the  Supreme  God  was  not  even 
indirectly  the  Author  of  the  world.  There  is  no  attempt 
at  a  description  of  the  spiritual  world,  no  hypothesis  to 
depict  the  development  of  absolute  into  relative  existence ; 
for  the  object  of  Marcion  was  simply  to  avail  himself  of 
the  surface  of  the  Gnostic  theories  for  the  solution  of  a 
critical  difficulty :  he  had  no  taste  for  plunging  into  the 
depths  of  ontological  speculation.  Matter  is  indeed 
admitted  into  his  system  as  an  eternal  self-existent  prin- 
ciple,2 but  no  consequences  are  deduced  from  this  assump- 
tion with  reference  to  the  constitution  of  the  world :  for 
the  mind  of  the  Author  was  almost  wholly  occupied  with 

dons  u.  das  Kanon.  Evang.  des  Lucas)  quently  retracted,  and  Baur  modified 

and  Baur  (Kanon.  Evang.   p.    397-  his  view.     Cf.  Bleek,  1.  c.  p.  129. 

427)  maintain  that  Marcion's  gospel  ]  For  a  full  examination  of  the 

was  interpolated  to  form  the  received  question,  see  Bleek,  Einleitung  in  das 

text   of  St.   Luke.     Schwegler    (Das  N.  T.  pp.  129-138 

nachapost.   Zeitalter  I.    p.   260-284)  2  Tertull.   Adv.    Marc.  i.  15  'Et 

maintains  the  negative  portion  of  the  materia  enimDeus,  secundum  formam 

same  view,  viz.  that  Marcion  did  not  divinitatis,  innata  scilicet  et  infecta  et 

mutilate   St.   Luke.      Eitschl   subse-  eeterna.' 


LECT.  xiii.  MARCION.  209 

the  supposed  contrasts  between  the  two  Testaments  and 
their  respective  authors ;  he  paid  little  or  no  attention  to 
theories  of  cosmogony.  And  hence,  though  in  reality  he 
recognised  three  original  principles,  Matter,  the  Demi- 
urge, and  the  Supreme  God,  he  makes  no  positive  use  of 
the  first,  and  his  system  is  frequently  described  as  if  it 
were  a  pure  dualism  recognising  the  two  last  only.1 

Marcion's  heretical  opinions  seem  to  have  begun  in  a 
minute  and  captious  criticism  of  the  Old  Testament, 
which  he  insisted  on  interpreting  everywhere  in  the  most 
literal  manner,  and  consequently  imagined  to  contain 
numerous  self-contradictions  and  unworthy  representations 
of  God.  He  wrote  a  work  entitled  'A.vTi0e<rei$,  professing 
to  point  out  contradictions  between  the  Old  Testament 
and  the  New,  as  well  as  to  show  that  parts  even  of  the 
latter  were  interpolated  and  corrupt.*  The  following  may 
be  given  as  specimens  of  his  mode  of  dealing  with  the 
Jewish  Scriptures.  The  God  whom  these  Scriptures  reveal, 
he  says,  cannot  have  been  a  God  of  wisdom  and  goodness 
and  power ;  for  after  having  created  man  in  his  own  image 
he  permitted  him  to  fall>  being  either  ignorant  that  he 
would  fall,  or  unwilling  or  unable  to  prevent  him  from 
falling.3  He  is  represented  as  calling  to  Adam  in  the 
garden,  e  Adam,  where  art  thou  ? '  showing  that  he  was 
ignorant  where  Adam  was.4  He  commanded  the  Israelites 
at  the  exodus  to  spoil  the  Egyptians.5  He  forbade  the 

1  Thus  one  of  the  earliest  antago-  they,  in  Herzog,  vol.  IX.  p.  98. 
nists,  Rhodon  (in  Euseb.  H.  E.  v.  13)  2  Tertull.    Adv.     Marc.      i.     19 
speaks  of  Marcion  as  holding  two  prin-  'Antitheses   Marcionis,  id    est,   con- 
ciples,  as  does  the  Pseudo-Tertullian,  trarise    oppositiones,    quse    conantur 
De  Prcsscr.  c.  51.    Hippolytus,  vii.  31,  discordiam  Evangelii  cum  lege  corn- 
attributes  two  principles  to  Marcion,  mittere.'      Ibid.  iv.    4    '  Evangelium 
but  in   x.  19,   he   enumerates  three.  Lucse  per  Antitheses  suas   arguit  ut 
Later  expositors  add  a  fourth,  an  evil  interpolatumaprotectoribusJudaismi.' 
"being  or  Satan  ;  Theodoret,  Hcer.  Fab.  s  Tert.  Adv.  Marc.  ii.  5. 
i.  24.    This  last  was  probably  a  later  *  Ibid,  ii.  25. 
modification  of  the  theory  ;    see  Dil-  5  Ibid.  ii.  20. 


210  ASIATIC  GNOSTICISM:  XECT.  xm. 

making  of  graven  images,  and  yet  commanded  Moses  to 
raise  up  the  brazen  serpent  in  the  wilderness,  and  cherubim 
to  be  placed  over  the  mercy  seat.1  He  chooses  Saul  to  be 
king  over  Israel,  and  is  afterwards  said  to  have  repented  of 
his  choice.2  He  threatens  to  destroy  the  children  of  Israel, 
and  is  turned  away  from  his  purpose  by  the  intercession  of 
Moses.3  On  these  and  other  accounts,  Marcion  censures 
the  Old  Testament  representation  of  God,  as  being  that 
of  an  imperfect  being ;  but  instead  of  adopting  the  hypo- 
thesis of  the  modern  rationalists,  and  denying  the  fidelity 
of  the  representation  and  consequently  the  inspiration  of 
the  book,  he  finds  an  apparent  solution  of  his  doubts  in 
the  Gnostic  hypothesis  of  a  distinction  between  the 
Supreme  God  and  the  Demiurge.  The  Old  Testament,  he 
argued,  represents  God  as  imperfect,  because  the  God  of 
the  Old  Testament,  the  Creator  of  the  world,  the  Author 
of  the  elder  revelation,  is  in  truth,  not  the  Supreme  God, 
but  an  imperfect  being.  He  did  not  however,  with  the 
majority  of  the  Gnostics,  regard  the  Demiurge  as  a  derived 
and  dependent  being,  whose  imperfection  is  due  to  his 
remoteness  from  the  highest  cause ;  nor  yet,  according  to 
the  Persian  doctrine,  did  he  assume  an  eternal  principle 
of  pure  malignity.  His  second  principle  is  independent 
of,  and  co-eternal  with,  the  first ;  opposed  to  it  however, 
not  as  evil  to  good,  but  as  imperfection  to  perfection,  or, 
as  Marcion  expressed  it,  as  a  just  to  a  good  being. 

The  choice  of  the  term  just,  which  Marcion  seems  to 
have  borrowed  from  Cerdon,  seems  at  first  sight  a  strange 
one  to  express  the  character  of  so  imperfect  a  being  as 
Marcion  professed  to  see  in  the  God  of  Israel.  But  in 
truth  Marcion's  interpretation  of  Justice  was  very  similar 
to  that  in  which  Aristotle  speaks  of  it  as  improperly  used 

1  Tertull.  Adv.  Marc.  ii.  22.  2  Ibid.  ii.  24. 

3  Ibid.  ii.  26. 


v^  °; 

UJ  P7] 

LECT.  xni.  MARCION.  211 

in  opposition  to  equity.1  He  conceived  of  it  as  the  severe, 
rigid  enforcement  of  every  particular  of  a  law  which  in 
itself  possessed  all  the  infirmities  of  the  legislator  by 
whom  it  was  enacted.  His  conception  of  the  law  of  Moses 
was  as  if  its  whole  spirit  and  purpose  was  summed  up  in 
the  single  precept,  '  an  eye  for  an  eye  and  a  tooth  for  a 
tooth.'2  He  exaggerated  and  distorted  the  teaching  of 
his  professed  master,  St.  Paul,  concerning  the  law  as 
weak  through  the  flesh,3  and  as  causing  offence  to  abound,4 
and  as  giving  the  knowledge  of  sin ; 5  but  omitted  alto- 
gether the  other  side  of  the  picture,  which  represents  the 
law  as  holy  and  just  and  good,6  as  being  our  school- 
master to  bring  us  to  Christ,7  as  causing  offence  to  abound 
only  that  grace  might  much  more  abound ; 8  and  on  the 
other  hand,  in  the  spirit  of  some  of  the  Deists  of  Bishop 
Butler's  day,  to  whom  his  method  of  criticism,  bears  no 
small  resemblance,  he  regarded  the  character  of  the  true 
God  as  one  of  pure  benevolence,9  overlooking,  or  rather 
purposely,  as  a  part  of  his  system,  setting  aside,  all  those 
aspects  of  nature  as  well  as  of  revelation,  which  represent 
Him  as  a  Moral  Governor. 

Though  it  is  a  slight  digression  from  our  main  topic, 
it  may  not  be  unprofitable  to  turn  aside  for  a  moment  to 
notice  the  manner  in  which  Tertullian  meets  the  cavils  of 
Marcion  against  the  Old  Testament.  Some  he  simply 
dismisses  as  misrepresentations  of  the  fact ;  the  brazen 
serpent,  for  instance,  and  the  cherubim  were  not  erected 
to  be  worshipped,  and  therefore  were  not  opposed  to  the 
second  commandment.  Other  features  of  the  Divine 
government  he  vindicates  by  showing  them  to  be  per- 

»  Eth.  Nic.  v.  14.  7  Gal.  iii.  24. 

2  Tertull.  Adv.  Marc.  ii.  18.                      8  Rom.  v.  20. 

3  Rom.  viii.  3.  9  Butler,    Analogy,   part  i.    c.   2. 

4  Rom.  v.  20.  Of.    Tertullian,    Adv.    Marc.    i.    6; 

5  Rom.  iii.  20.  Baur.  Die  Chr.  Gnosis  p.  251, 

6  Rom.  vii,  12, 

p  2 


212  ASIATIC  GNOSTICISM:  LBCT.  xm. 

fectly  compatible  with  the  goodness  of  their  Author,  even 
as  judged  by  his  antagonist's  own  standard.  The  fall  of 
Adani  was  not  caused  by  God's  appointment,  but  by  man's 
abuse  of  his  free  will ;  and  the  goodness  of  God  is  shown 
in  His  having  given  to  man  this  excellent  gift  of  freedom, 
which  exalts  him  above  all  the  rest  of  the  animal  creation, 
and  was  necessary  in  fact,  to  constitute  his  likeness  to 
his  Maker.1  Even  those  institutions  of  the  law  which 
Marcion  produces  as  proofs  of  the  harshness  and  severity 
of  God  will,  on  examination,  be  found  to  tend  to  the  benefit 
of  man.  The  '  lex  talionis '  was  a  law  adapted  to  the 
Jewish  people,  and  instituted  for  the  purpose  of  repressing 
violence  and  injustice.  The  prohibition  of  certain  kinds 
of  food  was  designed  to  inculcate  self-restraint,  and  thereby 
to  preserve  men  from  the  evils  of  excess.  The  sacrifices 
and  other  burdensome  observances  of  the  ceremonial  law, 
independently  of  their  typical  and  prophetical  meaning, 
answered  the  immediate  purpose  of  preventing  the  Jews 
from  being  seduced  into  idolatry  by  the  splendid  rites  of 
their  heathen  neighbours.2  The  gold  and  silver  of  Egypt 
he  regards  as  a  payment  justly  due  to  the  Israelites  for 
their  many  years  of  labour  and  service  in  that  country.3 

But  beyond  these,  there  is  another  consideration  to 
which  Tertullian  appeals,  and  one  which  is  too  often  kept 
out  of  sight  in  dealing  with  similar  difficulties — man's 
ignorance  of  God,  and  the  necessity  of  speaking  of 
divine  things  in  a  manner  adapted  to  human  capacities. 
You  have,'  he  says,  '  a  God,  certain  and  undoubted,  as 
may  be  seen  even  from  this,  that  you  see  Him  to  be  one 
whom  you  know  not,  save  in  so  far  as  He  is  pleased  to 
reveal  Himself.' .  .  .  '  Isaiah  exclaims,  "  Who  hath  directed 
the  Spirit  of  the  Lord,  or  being  His  counsellor  hath 

1  Tertull.  Adv.  Marc.  ii.  5,  6.  463.     Cf.  Tertull.  Adv.  Marc.  ii.  18. 

2  Bp.  Kaye    Tertullian,  pp.  462,  *  Tertull.  Adv.  Marc.  ii.  20. 


LECT.  xi  ii.  MAR  CION.  2  J  3 

taught  Him?  With  whom  took  He  counsel,  and  who 
instructed  Him,  and  taught  Him  in  the  path  of  judgment, 
and  taught  Him  knowledge,  and  showed  to  Him  the  way 
of  understanding?"  (Isaiah  xl.  13,  14).  And  St.  Paul 
agrees  with  him,  saying,  "  0  the  depth  of  the  riches  both 
of  the  wisdom  and  knowledge  of  God  !  how  unsearchable 
are  His  judgments,  and  His  ways  past  finding  out "  (Rom. 
xi.  33) — ways  of  understanding  and  knowledge  which  no 
one  has  shown  Him,  except,  it  may  be,  these  critics  of 
Deity  who  say,  God  ought  not  to  do  this  and  ought  to  do 
that,  as  if  any  one  can  know  the  things  of  God  but  the 
Spirit  of  God  (1  Cor.  ii.  11).  .  .  .  God  is  then  most  great 
when  He  seems  to  man  to  be  little ;  and  then  most  good 
when  He  seems  to  man  to  be  not  good.' l  In  a  later 
passage,  in  answer  to  the  objection  against  attributing  to 
God  human  feelings  and  passions,  he  says,  '  We  have 
learnt  our  God  from  the  prophets  and  from  Christ,  not 
from  Epicurus  and  the  philosophers.  We  who  believe 
that  God  dwelt  on  the  earth,  and  bumbled  Himself  to 
adopt  a  human  nature  for  man's  salvation,  are  far  from 
believing  that  to  have  a  care  for  anything  is  unworthy  of 
God.  .  .  .  Fools,  to  prejudge  of  Divine  things  by  human  ; 
as  if,  because  the  passions  of  man  belong  to  his  corrupt 
condition,  they  must  be  assumed  to  be  of  the  same  cha- 
racter in  God.  Distinguish  between  the  two  substances, 
and  interpret  differently  as  the  difference  of  substance 
requires,  though  you  use  terms  which  seem  to  be  the 
same.  .  .  .  This  must  be  regarded  as  the  image  of  God 
in  man,  that  he  has  the  same  affections  and  senses  as  God, 
but  not  such  as  God  has ;  for  their  conditions  and  ends 
differ  as  God  differs  from  man.  Our  very  gentleness, 
patience,  mercy,  and  goodness,  the  source  of  all,  are  not 
perfect  in  us  as  they  are  in  God,  who  is  alone  perfect.  .  . 

1  Tertull.  Adv.  Marc.  ii.  2. 


214  ASIATIC  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  xra. 

He  has  our  affections,  but  after  His  own  manner,  as  it 
becomes  Him  to  have  them ;  and  through  Him  man  has 
the  same  affections,  but  in  his  own  manner  also.' l 

As  Marcion  attempted  to  separate  the  God  6f  the  Old 
Testament  from  the  God  of  the  New,  so  he  likewise  at- 
tempted to  distinguish  between  two  Eedeemers,  separating 
the  Messiah  of  the  prophets  from  the  true  Christ.2  The 
Jewish  Messiah,  he  said,  still  harping  on  his  literal  in- 
terpretation, is  foretold  as  a  warrior  who  shall  destroy  the 
enemies  of  Israel,  and  bring  back  his  people  to  their  own 
land,  and  finally  give  them  rest  in  Abraham's  bosom ; 3 
Christ  did  none  of  these  things.  He  suffered  on  the  cross, 
whereas  the  law  declares  every  one  accursed  that  hangeth 
on  a  tree.4  He  was  sent  by  the  good  God  for  the  deliver- 
ance of  the  whole  human  race,  whereas  the  Messiah  of  the 
Jews  is  destined  by  the  Creator  to  restore  the  dispersed 
Israelites  only.&  On  account  of  these  supposed  discrep- 
ances Marcion  maintained  that  the  Hebrew  prophecies 
were  still  unfulfilled,  and  pointed  to  a  second  Christ,  the 
son  of  the  Demiurge,  who  was  hereafter  to  appear  as  the 
temporal  and  spiritual  deliverer  of  the  Jewish  people. 

With  regard  to  the  Christ  of  the  New  Testament,  the 
doctrine  of  Marcion  was  Docetic  in  the  extreme,  beyond 
that  of  any  previous  Gnostic  teacher.  Matter  was  the 
instrument  of  the  Demiurge,  which  he  employed  in  the 
formation  of  the  world ;  and  such  was  the  hostility  which 
he  supposed  between  his  two  deities,  that  Christ,  the 
representative  of  the  Supreme  God,  could  have  nothing  to 
do  with  a  material  body,  or  with  any  part  of  that  human 
nature  which  the  Demiurge  had  made.  Other  Gnostics, 
who  denied  the  reality  of  Christ's  humanity,  had  allowed 

1  Tertull.  Adv.  Marc.  ii.  16.  *  Ibid.  in.  18. 

2  Ibid.  iv.  6.  6  Ibid.  iii.  21. 
8  Ibid.  iii.  12,  24. 


LECT.  xiii.  MARCION.  215 

to  Him  at  least  a  human  soul  and  a  seeming  birth  into 
the  world.1  Marcion  denied  both ;  his  Christ  appears 
suddenly  on  the  world,  sent  down  from  that  higher  region 
which  is  the  dwelling  of  the  Supreme  God,2  with  the  ap- 
pearance, but  none  of  the  reality  of  mature  humanity, 
not  even  in  appearance  born  of  any  human  mother  (so  he 
interpreted  the  words,  '  Who  is  my  mother  ?,'  Matt.  xii. 
48), 3  nor  passing  through  any  stages  of  infancy  and  growth. 
His  gospel  is  said  to  have  commenced  with  the  words, 
6  In  the  fifteenth  year  of  the  reign  of  Tiberius  Csesar,  God 
came  down  to  Capernaum,  a  city  of  Galilee,  and  taught 
on  the  sabbath  days ' — a  verse,  with  the  interpolation  of 
the  word  God,  compounded  of  Luke  iii.  1,  and  iv.  31,  the 
intermediate  portions  of  the  Gospel  being  omitted  or 
transposed.4  A  seeming  death  his  Christ  was  permitted 
to  suffer,  for  death  is  a  diminution  of  the  kingdom  of  the 
Demiurge ;  but  of  birth,  which  increases  that  kingdom, 
not  even  the  appearance  was  to  be  tolerated.5  The 
seeming  death  of  Christ  Marcion  represented  as  being 
caused  by  the  malice  of  the  Demiurge,  who  beheld  the 
power  of  a  new  and  unknown  God  manifested  on  earth,6 
despising  his  law  and  drawing  away  his  subjects,  and 
therefore  roused  the  anger  of  the  Jews  against  Christ,  to 
persecute  and  put  him  to  death.7  Yet  the  contest  is  con- 
tinued in  another  world.  Christ  descends  into  hell  to 
proclaim  the  kingdom  of  the  true  God  to  the  spirits  of 

1  Cf.  the  psychical  Christ  and  the       Marcionem.' 

birth  us  Sia  au>\r\vos  of  Valentinus.  8  Tertullian,    De     Carne    Christi 

2  On  Marcion's  higher  world,  cf.       c.  7. 

Justin  M.  in  Apol.  i.  c.  27  SAAov  Se  4  Tertull.  Adv.  Marc.  iv.  7.     See 

nva.,  ccs  ovra  ju.ei£bi/a,  ra  fift^ova  irapa  above,  p.  207. 

rovrov  6/j.oXoye'iv  TTfTTonjKfvaL :  Tertull.  5  Cf.     Dilthey     in    Herzog     IX. 

Adv.  Marc.  i.  15    'Esse  et  illi  condi-  p.  33.     A  similar  view  seems  to  have 

tionem  suam  et  suum  mundum.'      On  been  previously  held   by  Saturninus  : 

the   suddenness   of  Christ's    coming  cf.  Irenseus,    i.   24.    1      '  Salvatorem 

into    the    world,    cf.    Tertull.    Adv.  innatum  demonstravit.' 

Marc.    iv.    11,      '  Subito    Christus,  T  Tertull.  Adv.  Marc.  iv.  20. 

subito  et  loannes ;  sic  sunt  omnia  apud 


216  ASIATIC  GNOSTICISM:  LECT.  xm. 

those  who  were  disobedient  to  the  law  of  the  Demiurge 
and  condemned  by  him  as  transgressors.  Cain,  Esau, 
Korah,  Dathan  and  Abiram,  the  men  of  Sodom,  the 
Egyptians,  all  who  in  the  Old  Testament  appear  as  the 
enemies  of  the  God  of  Israel,  join  themselves  to  Christ  in 
Hades,  and  are  received  into  his  kingdom,  while  Abel 
and  Enoch,  and  Noah,  and  the  patriarchs  and  prophets  of 
the  chosen  people,  remained  in  the  service  of  their  own 
God,  and  were  left  in  Hades.1 

But  while  Marcion  thus  emphatically  denied  any  real 
assumption  by  Christ  of  human  nature,  he  seems  on  the 
other  hand  to  have  left  His  relation  to  the  Supreme  God 
vague  and  undetermined.2     There  is  no  hint  in  his  teach- 
ing of  any  theory  of  emanation  from  the  Supreme  God, 
which  forms   an   essential  feature  in  the  other  Gnostic 
systems,  both  Docetic  and  Ebionite.     He  speaks  of  God 
as  having  revealed  Himself  in  human  form,3  as  the  Demi- 
urge or  his  angels  appeared  in  seemingly  human  bodies  to 
the  patriarchs ; 4  but  in  what  manner  he  •  distinguished 
between  the  persons  of  the  Father  and  the  Son,  or  whether 
indeed  he  made  any  distinction  at  all,  cannot  be  certainly 
decided  from  our  present  sources  of  information.     It  is  not 
improbable  however,  as  Meander  conjectures,  that  he  in- 
tended to  represent,  as  his  language  seems  to  imply,  that 
the  Supreme  God  himself  appeared,  without  any  Mediator, 
in  the  kingdom  of  the  Demiurge  on  earth,5  and  thus  that 
he  virtually,  if  not  explicitly,  adopted  the  Patripassian 
doctrine,  which  was  distinctly  a  very  short  time  after- 

1  Irenseus,  i.  27 ;  Theodoret,  H<er.  subjects.      Cf.  Baur,  Die  Chr.  Gnosis 

Fab.  i.  24  ;  Epiphan.  Hcer.  xlii.  4.  The  p.     273  ;    Dilthey    in    Herzog    IX. 

Armenian  Bishop  Esnig  adds  a  strange  p.  34. 

story  of  a  second  descent  of  Christ  into  2  Cf.  Dilthey  in  Herzog,  p.  33. 

hell,  where  he  confronts  the  Demiurge,  3  Irenseus,  i.  29. 

and  charges  him  with  the  murder  of  *  Tertull.  Adv.  Marc.  iii.  9. 

himself,  and  thus  justifies  himself  for  3   Church  History  II.  p.  143. 

carrying  away  his  enemy's  nominal 


LECT.  xm.  MARCION.  217 

wards  taught  by  Praxeas  and  Noetus.1  Though  Tertullian 
did  not  prominently  dwell  upon  this  point  in  his  work 
against  Marcion,  as  he  did  in  his  controversy  with  his 
contemporary  and  personal  antagonist  Praxeas,  yet  there 
are  not  wanting  incidental  expressions  to  show  that  this 
doctrine,  or  something  very  nearly  approaching  to  it,  was 
the  interpretation  which  he  put  upon  Marcion's  language.2 
It  was  a  natural  consequence  of  Marcion's  views  concern- 
ing the  Demiurge  and  his  kingdom  that  he  should  deny 
the  resurrection  of  the  body.3  It  was  also  natural  that, 
on  the  same  grounds,  he  should  inculcate  the  duty  of  the 
most  rigid  asceticism  during  this  life.  In  the  same  spirit 
in  which  he  had  denied  the  birth  of  Christ,  he  condemned 
marriage  as  increasing  the  kingdom  of  the  Demiurge.  No 
married  person  was  permitted  to  receive  the  baptism  by 
which  proselytes  were  admitted  into  his  sect,  and  which 
he  regarded  as  a  renunciation  of  the  Demiurge  and  his 
works.4  This  baptism  he  permitted  to  be  repeated  a 
second  and  a  third  time  in  the  case  of  those  who  fell  into 
sin  after  its  first  administration.5  He  also  prohibited  the 
use  of  animal  food,  except  fish,  which  he  regarded  as  a 
more  holy  food  than  flesh,6  and  enjoined  a  rigid  fast  on 
the  sabbath  day  as  a  mark  of  hostility  to  Judaism.7  In 

1  Marcion  came  to  Rome  after  the       [Tuus  Deus]  '  et  descendit  et  prsedi- 
death    of  Hyginus   (Epiphan.    Hear.       cavit,  et  passus  resurrexit.' 

xlii.  1).  He  flourished  under  Anicetus  3  Irenaeus    i.    27.    3      'Salutem 

(Irenseus,    iii.    4).      It   is    probable,  autem  solum  animarum  esse  futuram 

though  Tertullian  asserts  the  contrary,  earum  quse  ejus  doctrinam  didicissent ; 

that  he  died  before  the  pontificate  of  corpus   autem,   videlicet    quoniam   a 

Eleutherus,  A.D.   176.      Cf.  Massuet,  terra    sit  sumptum,  impossible  esse 

Diss.  Prcev.  in  lren.\.  §  137.   Praxeas  participare  salutem.' 

came  to  Rome  in  the  pontificate   of  4  Tertull.  Adv.  Marc.  i.  29    '  Non 

Victor  (A.D,  192-201)  or  perhaps  of  tingitur  apud  ilium  caro,  nisi   virgo, 

Eleutherus     (A.D.      176-192).        Cf.  nisi  vidua,  nisi  cselebs,  nisi  divortio 

Neander,  Antignosticus  p.  510  (Bohn).  baptisma  mercata.' 

Tertullian's    birth  may  probably   be  5  Epiphau.  Hcer.  xlii.  S. 

placed  A.D.  160.  6  Tertull.  Adv.  Marc.  i.  14. 

2  Adv'.  Marc.  ii.  28  'Tuus  [Deus]  7  Epiphan.  Hcer.  xlii.  3. 
semetipsum  voluit  interfici.'     Cf.  i.  1 1 . 


218  ASIATIC  GNOSTICISM:  LBCT.  xin. 

these  practices  we  see  the  consistent  disciple  of  the  Syrian 
Gnosticism,  which  had  descended  to  Marcion  through 
Cerdon  from  Saturninus. 

The    principal    speculative    distinction    between   the 
system  of  Marcion  and  that  of  his   Syrian  predecessors, 
besides  that  which  we  have  noticed  already,  the  absence 
of    any   theory   of    emanations  in   connection   with  the 
doctrine  of  creation  or  redemption,  consisted  in  the  non- 
recognition  of  any  principle  of  pure  evil.     He  assumed 
only  three  principles :  the  Supreme  God,  the  Demiurge, 
and  the  eternal  matter,  the  two  latter  being  imperfect, 
but  not  essentially  evil.1     Some  of  the  later  Marcionites 
seem  to  have  added  an  evil  spirit  as  a  fourth  principle, 
but  this  must  be  regarded  as  an  innovation  on  the  teach- 
ing of  the  master,  who  does  not  appear  to  have  recognised 
any  other  evil  being  than  the  Demiurge,  whose  economy, 
originally  of  a  mixed  character,  combining  good  and  evil 
together,  might  in  certain  relations  assume  the  character 
of  positive  evil,  namely,  when  placed  in  direct  antagonism 
to  the  redeeming  work  of  the  higher  God.      This  feature 
of  Marcion's  system  may  be  traced  to  the  character  of  his 
mind,  averse  from  abstract  speculation,  and  dealing  with 
philosophical  hypothesis  to  no  further  extent  than  was 
actually  required  by  the  phenomena  to  be  explained.    The 
actual  appearance  of  the  world  presented  phenomena  of  a 
mixed  character,  partly  good  and  partly  evil,  and  an  author 
of  a  similar  nature  seemed  to  him   sufficient  to  explain 
these  without  the  need  of  analysing  this  assumption  into 
any  simpler  and  purer  elements. 

Marcion   is  the  least   Gnostic   of   all   the   Gnostics. 
Though  not  in  point  of  time  the  latest  holder  of  Gnostic 

1  Theodoret,  Hcsr.  Fab.  i.  24.     Cf .  to  the  two  recognised  by  Cerdon,  the 

Dilthey  in  Herzog,  IX.  28.     Epipha-  Supreme  God  and  the  Demiurge, 
nius,  Hcsr.  xlii.  3,  mentions  the  Devil  2  Cf.    Baur,     Die     Chr.      Gnosis 

as  a  third  principle  added  by  Marcion  p.  281. 


LECT.  xin.  MARCION.  219 

doctrines,  lie  is  the  latest  original  thinker  of  this  class, 
and  his  teaching  represents  the  point  of  transition  at 
which  Christian  speculation  passes  over  from  philosophy 
to  pure  theology.  Cosmological  and  ontological  problems, 
attempts  to  connect  Christianity  with  the  objects  and 
method  of  heathen  speculation,  had,  for  a  time  at  least, 
worn  themselves  out.  The  traces  of  them  in  Marcion 
himself  are  feeble  and  incidental,  and  in  the  next  phase 
of  religious  thought  they  pass  out  of  sight  to  make  way 
for  speculation  more  directly  arising  out  of  the  Christian 
revelation,  as  manifested  in  the  Monarchian  controversy. 


220  JUDAIZING  REACTION:  LECI.  xiv. 


LECTURE   XIV. 

JUDAIZING    REACTION — THE    CLEMENTINES — THE 
ELKESAITES. 

IP  we  compare  the  doctrines  of  the  earliest  Gnostic  proper 
(omitting  Sinion  and  Menander,  whose  teaching  is  anti- 
Christian  rather  than  heretical)  whose  name  is  known  to 
us,  with  those  of  the  latest  master  of  any  Gnostic  school 
of  reputation,  we  shall  see  that  the  Christian  element  in 
Gnosticism  had  in  the  course  .of  rather  more  than  half  a 
century  come  round  to  a  point  almost  opposite  to  its 
original  position.  Cerinthus,  the  precursor  of  Ebionism, 
regarded  Christianity  as  the  completion  of  Judaism,  and 
maintained  the  continued  obligation  of  the  Jewish  law. 
Marcion  regarded  Christianity  as  irreconcilably  antagon- 
istic to  Judaism,  and  manifested  his  hostility  to  the 
Jewish  law  in  every  possible  way  both  of  teaching  and 
practice.  Cerinthus  regarded  Jesus  as  a  man  born  after 
the  manner  of  other  men  ;  Marcion,  in  the  other  extreme, 
regarded  Him  as  having  descended  suddenly  from  heaven, 
and  refused  to  ascribe  to  Him  even  the  appearance  of  a 
birth  from  any  human  parent.  Cerinthus  considered  the 
Divine  mission  of  Jesus  as  having  commenced  at  His 
baptism ;  Marcion  omitted  all  mention  of  the  baptism  in 
his  mutilated  Gospel.  Cerinthus  separated  the  person  of 
Christ  from,  that  of  Jesus,  regarding  them  as  two  wholly 
distinct  beings,  the  one  purely  spiritual,  the  other  purely 
human ;  Marcion  not  only  rejected  the  humanity  of  our 


LECT.  xiv.    THE  CLEMENTINES,   THE  ELKESAITES.        221 

Lord  altogether,  but  seems  hardly,  if  at  all,  to  have  re- 
cognised any  distinction  between  the  Divine  Person  of  the 
Father  and  that  of  the  Son.  It  was  natural  that  the 
extravagant  hostility  of  Marcion  to  the  Jewish  religion 
should  call  forth  a  reaction  equally  extravagant  in  the 
opposite  direction ;  and  accordingly,  the  next  step  which 
we  are  called  upon  to  notice  in  the  transmutation  of 
Gnosticism  is  a  return  (with  some  important  variations  in 
detail  however)  to  the  judaizing  standpoint  of  Cerinthus 
and  the  Ebionites.  The  work  in  which  this  reaction  is 
represented  is  the  so-called  Clementine  Homilies,  a  pro- 
duction, it  is  hardly  necessary  to  observe,  not  of  the 
Apostolic  Father,  Clement  of  Eome,  whose  name  it  bears, 
but  of  a  later  writer  making  use  of  his  name.  It  can 
hardly  be  called  a  forgery,  for  it  may  be  doubted  whether 
the  author  had  any  intention  of  passing  it  off  as  a  genuine 
production  of  Clement.  It  was  necessary  to  the  plot  of 
his  romance  to  carry  the  scene  back  to  Apostolic  times, 
to  bring  on  the  field  St.  Peter,  the  Apostle  of  the  Circum- 
cision, and  his  earliest  antagonist,  Simon  Magus,  the  pre- 
cursor and  representative  of  the  anti- Jewish  Gnosticism  ; 
and  Clement,  who,  according  to  one  tradition  preserved 
by  Tertullian,1  was  ordained  Bishop  of  Eome  by  St.  Peter 
himself,  was  so  far  a  person  whom  it  was  natural  to  select 
as  the  companion  of  the  Apostle  in  his  journeys  and  the 
reporter  of  his  acts  and  teaching ;  though  at  the  same 
time  there  is  some  incongruity  in  choosing  a  man  who 
is  generally  identified  with  one  of  the  fellow-labourers  of 
St.  Paul,  to  be  the  vehicle  of  a  judaizing  reaction  against 
the  teaching  which  Marcion  professed  to  derive  from  St. 
Paul's  own  writings.2 

1  De  PrcBscr.  c.  32.     So  the  Clem.       mentioned  in  Phil.  iv.  3,  he  is  more 
Horn.  Epist.  Clem.  c.  2.  likely  to  have  been  the  companion  of 

2  If  Clement  is  the  same  who  is       St.  Paul  than  of  St.  Peter. 


222  JUDAIZING  REACTION:  LECT.  xiv. 

The  collection  called  The  Clementines,  to  adopt  the  name 
now  commonly  given  to  the  whole  series  of  cognate  works,1 
comprises  three  separate  writings  of  similar  character,  and 
emanating  from  one  school,  namely;  (1)  The  Homilies, 
professing  to  be  an  account  written  by  Clement,  at  the 
desire  of  St.  Peter,  to  St.  James  the  Bishop  of  Jerusalem, 
narrating  his  introduction  to  and  travels  with  the  Apostle, 
together  with  the  disputations  between  St.  Peter  and  his 
companions  on  the  one  side,  and  Simon  Magus  and  his 
disciples  on  the  other.  (2)  The  Recognitions  ('AvayvacrEis), 
so  called  from  the  discovery  by  Clement  of  his  parents  and 
brothers,  which  forms  an  interesting  episode  in  all  these 
works,  though  giving  its  title  to  one  only.  (3)  The  Epitome, 
an  abbreviated  recension  of  the  Homilies,2  with  some 
slight  additions  from  other  sources.  The  Recognitions  are 
now  extant  only  in  a  Latin  translation  by  Rufinus ;  the 
two  other  works  have  come  down  to  us  in  the  original 
Greek,  the  concluding  portion  of  the  Homilies,  which  were 
for  a  long  time  imperfect,  having  been  recently  recovered 
from  a  MS  in  the  Vatican  Library.  The  contents  of 
all  the  works  are  cognate  to  each  other,  and  in  parts 
substantially  identical,  but  the  Gnostic  element  predo- 
minates in  the  Homilies,3  which  were  probably  (though 
this  point  has  been  much  disputed)  the  earliest  of  the 
three  writings  in  their  present  form.4  For  our  present 
purpose  it  will  be  sufficient  to  confine  our  attention  to 
this  work,  the  date  of  which  may  probably  be  placed  about 

1  On  the  proper  use  of  this  title,  p.  754. 

see    Uhlhorn    in   Herzog,    vol.    II.  4  For  an  account  of  this  dispute, 

p.  744.  see  Uhlhorn,  /.  c.  p.  750  se q.   Of  recent 

8  By  Dressel,  who  published  it  at  writers,  Schliemann,  Schwegler,   and 
Gottingen  in  1853.    The  new  portion  Uhlhorn   (as  well  as  Dorner,  Person 
embraces  the  latter  part  of  Horn,  xix  of  Christ  I.  p.  446)  give  the  priority 
from  the   middle   of    §  14,   and  the  to  the  Homilies  ;  Hilgenfeld,  Kostlin, 
whole  of  Horn.  xx.  and  Eitschl,  to  the  Recognitions. 

9  Cf.    Uhlhorn    in    Herzog,    II. 


LECT.  xiv.     THE  CLEMENTINES,   THE  ELKESAITES.       223 

A.D.  160  or  a  little  later,  though  some  portions  of  it  may 
be  a  very  few  years  earlier.1     To  the  Homilies  is  prefixed 
a   brief  introduction   containing    (1)   a   supposed   letter 
from  St.  Peter  to  St.  James  the  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  re- 
commending to  him  the  record  of  his  own  teaching  which 
he  is  about  to  send,  and  desiring  that  it  may  be  preserved 
as  a  secret  doctrine,  to  be  communicated  only  to  those 
who   should   be   found   worthy  to  receive  it — a  caution 
which  of  itself  betrays  the  apprehension  of  the  writer  that 
his  system  is  different  from  that  received  by  the  Catholic 
Church.2      (2)  A  supposed  speech  of  St.   James  to  his 
assembled  presbytery,  containing  the  measures  which  he 
proposes   for  the  safe  custody  and  transmission  of  the 
secret  doctrine.     (3)  A  letter  purporting  to  be  written 
by  Clement  to  St.  James,  giving  an  account  of  his  own 
appointment  by  St.  Peter  just  before  his  martyrdom,  as 
his  successor  in  the  episcopate  of  Eome,  with  the  directions 
given  to  him,  and  to  the  presbyters,  deacons,  catechists, 
and  people,  by  the  Apostle  for  their  conduct   in   their 
several   offices;    and    finally   introducing    the    narrative 
which  he  had  drawn  up  by  St.  Peter's  command,  to  be 
transmitted   to   St.   James.      Then   follow  the  Homilies 
themselves,  twenty  in  number,  the  contents  of  which  may 
be  briefly  summed  up  as  follows.       Clement,  a  Eoman 
citizen,  anxious  for  a  knowledge  of  truth,  and  having 
vainly  sought  for  it  in  the  schools  of  philosophy,  at  last 
hears  of  Jesus  and  His  teaching  and  miracles  in  Judea, 
and  determines  to  visit  that  country  to  inquire  into  what 
he  had  heard.     Having  sailed  to  Alexandria,  and  being 
detained  there  by  adverse  winds,  he  becomes  acquainted 
with  St.  Barnabas,  whom  he  follows  to  Ceesarea,  and  is 

1  Cf.    Uhlhorn     in    Herzog,    II.  earlier  than  A.D.  150. 
p.   756.    The    earliest    part    of  the  2  Cf.   Dorner,   Person    of  Christ 

work  (Horn,   xvi-xix)  combats  Mar-  I.  p.  212. 
cion,   and  therefore  can   hardly    be 


224  JUDAIZING  REACTION:  LECT.  xiv. 

introduced  by  him  to  St.  Peter,  who  first  instructs  him  in 
the  nature  of  the  true  Prophet  as  the  expounder  of  Divine 
truth,  and  then  invites  him  to  be  present  at  a  disputation 
to  be  held  on  the  following  day  between  himself  and 
Simon  the  magician.  On  the  next  day  Clement  becomes 
acquainted  with  some  of  the  companions  of  St.  Peter, 
amongst  others  with  two  brothers,  named  Mcetas  and 
Aquila,  who  had  formerly  been  disciples  of  Simon  Magus, 
but  had  now  left  him  and  followed  St.  Peter.  He  is  now 
further  instructed  in  the  character  and  office  of  the  true 
Prophet,  who  alone  is  the  teacher  of  the  truth,  and  whose 
teaching  must  be  implicitly  followed.  He  is  also  told 
that  God  is  both  good  and  just,  and  that  the  justice  may 
be  reconciled  with  the  apparent  inequalities  of  man's 
fortunes  in  this  life  if  we  believe  that  there  is  a  future 
state  in  which  all  men  will  be  rewarded  or  punished 
according  to  their  deeds.  He  is  further  told  that  Simon 
the  Samaritan  denies  the  justice  of  God  (an  evident 
allusion  to  the  doctrine  of  Marcion),  and  this  circum- 
stance gives  occasion  to  introduce  the  doctrine  of  crv&ylai, 
or  pairs  of  opposites,  which  run  through  the  constitution 
of  all  things.  Justice  must  exist,  for  injustice  exists,  and 
the  existence  of  the  one  implies  that  of  the  other ;  and  if 
justice  exists  anywhere,  it  must  be  in  God,  the  source  of 
all  things.  God,  who  is  one,  has  made  all  things  in  pairs, 
a  better  and  a  worse,  represented  as  male  and  female,  e.g. 
heaven  and  earth,  day  and  night,  sun  and  moon,  life  and 
death.  In  other  parts  of  creation  the  masculine  or  better 
element  is  first  and  the  feminine  second ;  in  man  alone 
the  order  is  reversed,  and  the  inferior  takes  precedence  of 
the  superior.  Thus  this  life,  which  is  temporal,  precedes 
the  next  life,  which  is  eternal,  and  among  the  generations 
of  men  the  worse  comes  before  the  better,  Cain  before 
Abel,  Ishmael  before  Isaac,  Esau  before  Jacob,  Aaron 


LECT.  xiv.     THE  CLEMENTINES,   THE  ELKESAITES.       225 

before  Moses,  and  now  Simon  Magus  before  Peter,  who 
is  come  to  undo  his  work.  After  this  Clement  is  recom- 
mended to  Aquila  and  "Nicetas,  who  narrate  to  him  the 
previous  history  of  Simon  Magus,  following  for  the  most 
part  the  usual  traditions  concerning  the  impostor,  with 
some  additional  particulars, 

The  dispute  being  then  postponed  for  another  day, 
Peter  proceeds  to  inform  Clement  of  the  subject  of  the 
intended  controversy.  The  Scripture,  he  says,  contains 
falsehood  mingled  with  truth ;  the  introduction  of  false- 
hood having  been  permitted  by  God  in  order  to  try  men's 
faith.  Simon,  he  continues  (here  there  is  an  evident 
allusion  to  Marcion),  means  to  adduce  these  false  passages 
which  give  unworthy  representations  of  God,  that  he  may 
lead  men  away  from  the  faith.  Such,  for  example,  are 
those  places  in  Scripture  which  speak  of  God  as  showing 
his  power  with  others,  as  being  ignorant,  as  repenting,  as 
being  jealous,  as  hardening  men's  hearts,  as  pleased  with 
sacrifices,  as  dwelling  in  a  tabernacle,  and  the  like.  Such 
also  are  those  which  speak  evil  of  just  men,  as,  for 
instance,  the  disobedience  of  Adam,  the  drunkenness  of 
Noah,  the  polygamy  of  Jacob,  the  homicide  of  Moses. 
All  these  will  be  more  fully  explained  hereafter.  On  the 
third  day  the  disputation  between  Peter  and  Simon 
commences,  and  lasts  for  three  days.  Before  its  com- 
mencement Peter  gives  some  further  information  to  his 
companions  concerning  the  opinions  of  Simon,  still  with 
evident  allusion  to  the  teaching  of  Marcion.  He  charges 
him  with  maintaining  that  the  Creator  of  the  world  is 
not  the  Supreme  God,  but  that  there  is  another  superior 
and  unknown  God ;  and  he  then  proceeds  to  dwell  on  the 
unity  of  God  as  the  foundation  of  all  true  religion,  and 
on  the  dignity  of  Adam,  the  first  true  prophet,  and  on  the 
spirit  of  false  prophecy,  represented  by  Eve,  which  teaches 


226  JUDAIZING  REACTION:  LECT.  xiv. 

a  plurality  of  Gods.1  *  After  this  the  disputation  com- 
mences. Peter  maintains  the  existence  of  one  God,  who 
created  the  world  and  all  that  it  contains  for  the  benefit 
of  man.  Simon  on  the  contrary  maintains  Marcion's 
doctrine  of  two  Gods,  and  enlarges  on  the  imperfections 
of- the  God  revealed  in  the  Old  Testament,  to  which  Peter 
replies  by  means  of  his  previous  distinction  between  the 
true  and  the  false  Scriptures.2  At  the  end  of  the  third 
day  Simon  withdraws  and  escapes  by  night  to  Tyre,  while 
Peter  remains  at  Csesarea  to  confirm  the  Church  in  that 
city,  appointing  Zacchseus  (the  publican  of  St.  Luke's 
Gospel)  as  its  Bishop. 

In  the  meanwhile  he  sends  Clement  with  Aquila  and 
Mcetas  to  Tyre  to  inquire  into  the  proceedings  of  Simon.3 
After  their  arrival  at  Tyre  they  find  that  Simon,  after 
exhibiting  many  sorceries,  has  departed  to  Sidon,  leaving 
however  behind  him  three  of  his  followers,  Appion  or 
Apion,  a  grammarian  of  Alexandria  (meant  for  Apion  the 
antagonist  of  Josephus,  whose  hatred  to  the  Jews  makes 
him  a  fit  companion  for  Simon,  the  representative  of  Mar- 
cion),  Annubion,  an  astrologer,  and  Athenodorus  of  Athens, 
an  Epicurean  philosopher.4     Clement  holds  a  disputation 
with  Apion  concerning  the  fables  of  the  heathen  mytho- 
logy, Clement  condemning  their  immoral  character,  and 
Apion  defending   them  as  allegorical  representations  of 
natural  phenomena.5     This  dispute  occupies  the  time  till 
the  arrival  of  Peter  at  Tyre.     After  this  Peter,  with  his 
companions,  follows  Simon  from  place  to  place,  counter- 
acting the   effect   of  his    sorceries    and   instructing   the 
people.6     At  Tripolis  he  stays  three  months,  and   delivers 
several  discourses  to  the  people,  giving  them  among  other 

1  Horn.  iii.  1-29.  *  Horn.  iv.  6. 

2  Horn.  iii.  30-57.  *  Horn.  iv.  11— vi.  25. 
8  Horn.  iii.  58-73.  6  Horn.  vi.  26— vii.  12. 


LECT.  xiv.     THE   CLEMENTINES,   THE  ELKESAITES.       227 

things  some  very  curious  information  on  the  subject  of 
demonology  and  witchcraft.1  At  this  place  Clement  is 
baptized,  and  then  departs  with  Peter  for  Antioch,  in 
search  of  Simon.  In  the  course  of  this  journey  he  relates 
to  Peter  his  own  history  and  discovers  his  mother,  who 
had  fled  from  Eome  in  his  infancy.  Afterwards,  at 
Laodicea,  he  recognises  his  two  elder  brothers  in 
Nicetas  and  Aquila,  and  finally  recovers  his  father,  who 
had  also  left  him  at  a  later  age.2  These  several  recogni- 
tions are  the  circumstances  which  give  the  title  to  the 
second  Clementine  work,  in  which  they  are  also  contained. 
The  journey  to  Antioch  is  interrupted  by  the  arrival  of 
Simon  at  Laodicea,  where  a  second  disputation  takes 
place  between  him  and  Peter,  and  is  carried  on  for  four 
days.3  This  disputation,  which  is  probably  the  original 
groundwork  of  the  book,4  turns  in  the  first  place,  like  that 
in  the  third  homily,  which  is  probably  a  later  revision,  on 
the  question  of  the  unity  of  God  and  the  representations 
of  Him  in  the  Old  Testament.  Simon  endeavours  to  prove 
that  the  Scripture  acknowledges  a  plurality  of  Gods ; 
while  Peter,  disposing  of  apparently  adverse  testimonies 
by  his  former  distinction  between  the  true  and  the  false 
portions  of  Scripture,  maintains  the  perfect  unity  of  God, 
and  denies  that  the  name  can  be  given  to  any  other  being. 
In  this  discussion  it  should  be  remarked  that  Peter  is 
made  to  deny  that  Christ  Himself  ever  asserted  His  own 
Divinity,5  and  to  declare  that  the  Son,  as  being  begotten, 
must  be  of  a  different  nature  from  the  unbegotten  God.6 
Subsequently  Simon  is  represented  as  urging  the  Mar- 
cionite  distinction  between  two  Gods,  the  one  good,  the 
other  merely  just,7  while  Peter  maintains  that  the  Supreme 

1  Horn,  viii-xu  6  Horn.  xvi.  15. 

2  Horn,  xii-xiv.  6  Horn.  xvi.  16. 

8  Horn,  xvi-xix.  7  Horn.  xvii.  4,  5. 

4  Uhlhorn  in  Herzog  II.  p.  755. 

Q  2 


228  JV  DAI  ZING  REACTION:  LECT.  xiv. 

God,  in  whose  image  man  was  made,  has  himself  a  form 
and  members  like  those  of  man,  though  not  made  of  flesh ; 
he  also  expounds  the  relation  of  the  Divine  Being  to  space, 
emanating  from  Him  as  from  a  centre  in  six  directions, 
up  and  down,  right  and  left,  backwards  and  forwards, 
which  he  calls  the  mystery  of  the  Hebdomad,  figured  by 
the  six  days  of  creation  with  the  rest  of  God  on  the 
seventh ;  and  finally  he  maintains  the  superiority  of  his 
own  knowledge  as  having  seen  and  conversed  with  Christ, 
over  those  who  pretended  to  know  Divine  things  by 
dreams  and  visions.1  The  controversy  concludes  with 
two  discussions,  neither  of  them  leading  to  any  very 
definite  conclusions,  on  the  supremacy  of  God  and  on  the 
origin  of  evil.2  After  the  departure  of  Simon,  Peter  again 
discourses  with  his  own  disciples  on  the  free  will  of  man, 
on  the  nature  of  evil,  and  on  the  Devil  as  the  prince  of 
this  world ;  in  which  discourse  he  advances  the  strange 
doctrine  that  the  Devil  is  a  being  appointed  by  God  for 
the  punishment  of  wicked  men ;  that  he  himself,  though 
of  evil  nature,  does  no  evil,  but  accomplishes  God's  will ; 
and  that  his  final  condemnation  is  not  a  punishment  but 
a  translation  to  the  kingdom  of  darkness,  which  is  con- 
genial to  his  nature.3  Then  follows  a  strange  story,  how 
Simon,  hearing  that  he  was  to  be  arrested  by  order  of  the 
emperor,  bewitched  Faustus  the  father  of  Clement,  and 
changed  his  face  into  a  likeness  of  himself,  hoping  that 
Faustus  might  be  arrested  in  his  stead.  Peter  however 
turns  Simon's  device  against  himself  by  sending  Faustus 
to  Antioch,  and  bidding  him  in  the  character  of  Simon 

1  Horn,  xvii.  6-19.      This  passage  and   revelations    (2   Cor.    xii.   1)  is 

has  probably  reference  to  the  Doce-  contrasted  with  St.  Peter's  intercourse 

tism    of    Marcion,     which     reduced  with  Him  during  his  earthly  life.    Cf. 

Christ  to  a  mere  vision  ;  but  there  is  Baur,  Die  Chr.  Gnosis  p.  384. 
also  a  covert  attack  on  Marcion's  as-  2  Horn,  xviii,  xix. 

sumed    authority,    St.    Paul,    whose  3  Horn.  xx.  1-9. 

knowledge  of  Christ  through  visions 


LECT.  xiv.     THE  CLEMENTINES,   THE  ELKESAITES.       229 

retract  all  the  calumnies  which  he  had  uttered  against 
Peter,  and  thus  prepare  the  people  for  a  favourable 
reception  of  the  Apostle  and  his  companions.  After  ten 
days  a  message  arrives  from  Faustus,  announcing  that  his 
task  is  performed,  and  the  work  concludes  with  the  depar- 
ture of  Peter  for  Antioch.1 

From  the  constant  antagonism  to  Simon  Magus  and 
the  praises  of  Peter  which  appear  in  the  work,  it  might 
at  first  sight  be  supposed  to  be  a  protest  of  an  orthodox 
Christian  against  Gnosticism  in  the  person  of  its  first 
representative.  In  truth  however  it  is  only  the  protest 
of  one  Gnostic  school  against  another — the  Ebionite 
against  the  Marcionite.  The  Gnostic  tendency  of  the 
work,  though  not  prominently  put  forward,  appears  in  it 
almost  from  the  commencement.  The  purpose  of  God's 
dealings  with  men  is  declared  to  be  to  instruct  them  in 
the  truth  of  things  as  they  are ; 2  and  it  is  for  this  purpose 
that  revelations  have  been  given  through  the  instrumen- 
tality of  the  true  prophets.  The  true  prophet  knows  all 
things,  past,  present,  and  to  come,  and  even  the  thoughts 
of  all  men ;  he  is  without  sin  and  the  only  authorised 
guide  to  truth.3  This  knowledge  he  has  by  the  innate 
and  perpetual  dwelling  in  him  of  the  Divine  Spirit;4 
indeed  the  true  prophet  is  the  Spirit  himself,  who  from 
the  beginning  has  passed  through  the  ages  of  the  world 
in  various  forms,  labouring  in  this  world  and  destined  to 
eternal  rest  in  the  world  to  come.5  Eight  different  per- 
sons are  named  in  whom  the  Spirit  has  successively 
manifested  himself,  namely,  Adam,  Enoch,  Noah,  Abra- 
ham, Isaac,  Jacob,  Moses  (who  are  called  the  sure  pillars 
of  the  world6),  and  finally  Jesus.7  The  doctrine  taught  by 

1  Horn.  xx.  11-23.  s  Horn.  iii.  20. 

2  Horn.    ii.    15   (cf.    ii.     5).     See  6  Horn,  xviii.  14. 

Uhlhorn  in  Herzog  II.  p.  746.  7  Horn.    xvii.   4,  xviii.    13.      Cf. 

3  Horn.  ii.  6,  10,  iii.  11.  Schliemann,  Die  Clementinen  p.  194. 

4  Horn.  iii.  12. 


230  JUDAIZING  REACTION:  LEOT.XIV. 

all  these  is  one  and  the  same ;  indeed  the  teachers  them- 
selves are  but  reappearances  of  one  and  the  same  teacher, 
Adam  the  first  son  of  God,  manifested  in  various  forms 
at  subsequent  times,  as  the  revelation  given  by  him  became 
corrupt  and  needed  renovation.1  Thus  Christianity  and 
Judaism  are  one  and  the  same  religion  in  all  respects ; 
only  that  this  identity  must  be  understood  of  the  true 
Judaism  as  revealed  by  the  true  prophet,  not  of  the  cor- 
rupted form  which  appears  in  the  false  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture proceeding  from  evil  inspiration.2  The  true  Judaism 
consists  in  acknowledgment  of  one  God  and  obedience  to 
His  commands ;  the  commands  however  being  appa- 
rently limited  to  the  moral  law  only.  Sacrifices  are 
especially  condemned ; 3  circumcision  is  passed  over  with- 
out notice;4  and  the  ordinances  urgently  enjoined  as  those 
of  true  Judaism  are  the  Christian  sacrament  of  baptism, 
together  with  abstinence  from  meats  offered  to  idols  and 
from  things  strangled.5  Abstinence  from  all  animal  food 
is  highly  recommended,  though  not  absolutely  commanded.6 
But  the  most  striking  feature  in  this  Clementine  identifi- 
cation of  Christianity  with  Judaism  is  the  distinct  denial 
of  the  Divinity  of  our  Lord  (a  denial  which  the  author 
regards  as  indispensable  to  monotheism7),  and  the  addi- 
tion of  His  name  to  the  catalogue  of  Jewish  prophets  as 
the  successor  of  Adam  and  Moses.8  Whether  the  author, 


1  Horn.  iii.  20.  Cf.  Baur,  Die  Chr.  the  representative  of  the  true    Ju- 
Gnosis    pp.   343,    362  ;    Schliemann,  daism  of  the  author ;  but  his  position 
Die  Clementinen  p.  195.  does    not    therefore    represent     the 

2  Horn.  xi.   16,  iv.  13.      Cf.  Baur,  rite  as  binding  on  Christians. 

Die  Ckr.  Gnosis  p.  365.  5  Horn.   vii.  8.     Cf.   Schliemann, 

3  Horn.  iii.  45,  56,  ix.  7,  14.      Cf.  pp.  223-225. 

Schliemann,  p.  222.  6  Horn.    iii.    45,    viii.    15.       Cf. 

4  Cf.    Schliemann,    p.    225.     The  Schliemann,  p.  223. 
mention  of  Peter  in  the  §ia/j.apTvpia  as  7  Horn.  xvi.  15. 

alpovfjLevos   €/j.irepiToiJ.os    is  hardly   an  8  Horn,  xviii.  14.    Cf.  Schliemann, 

exception  to  this  statement.     Peter  is  p.    194;    Uhlhd'rn     in    Herzog     II. 

the  Apostle  of  the  circumcision,  and  p.  746,  747. 


LECT.  xiv.     THE  CLEMENTINES,    THE  ELKESA1TES.       231 

like  Cerinthus  and  the  Ebionites,  denied  the  supernatural 
birth  of  our  Saviour,  is  a  matter  of  dispute ;  the  only 
passages  which  bear  upon  the  question  being  capable  of 
interpretation  in  two  ways ; l  but  the  direct  antagonism  to 
Marcion  which  is  everywhere  manifest  in  the  work  makes 
it  at  least  probable  that,  as  Marcion  went  to  the  extreme 
of  denying  to  the  Saviour  all  human  parentage,  his  oppo- 
nent, in  the  opposite  extreme,  did  not  distinguish  His  birth 
from  that  of  other  men.2 

Hostility  to  Marcionism  is  indeed  the  leading  feature 
of  the  work.  It  is  Marcion  who  for  the  most  part  is 
represented  under  the  character  of  Simon  Magus,  though 
there  is  also  here  and  there  a  covert  attack  upon  St.  Paul, 
whose  Epistles  were  the  only  Apostolic  writings  which 
Marcion  accepted  as  authoritative.3  And  yet,  though  the 
doctrines  of  Marcion,  and  in  a  secondary  relation  other 
Gnostic  systems,  are  attacked  in  this  work,  the  teaching 
of  the  work  itself  exhibits  Gnosticism  in  another  phase. 
Not  merely  in  the  negative  feature  of  the  Cerinthian  and 
Ebionite  humanitarianism  does  this  appear,  but  also  in 
the  positive  tenets  of  the  system ;  in  the  representation 
of  religion  as  a  philosophy  teaching  the  true  nature  of 
things ;  in  the  acknowledgment  of  Christ  merely  as  a 
teacher  of  this  knowledge ;  in  the  speculations  on  the 
nature  and  origin  of  matter  and  of  evil,  which,  though 


1  The   two  passages   which   bear  mony  of  Hippolytus,  ix.  14,  who  says 
on  this  question  are  iii.  17,  and  iii.  20.  that  Elchesai,  whose  teaching  much 
For  the  different  interpretations,  see  resembles   that  of   the   Clementines, 
Schliemann,  p.  200.  taught  that  Christ  was  born  like  other 

2  This  interpretation,  which  is  re-  men,  but  had  appeared  often  in  differ- 
jected   by   Schliemann,   by    Neander  ent    bodies.       This    is   in    fact    the 
(Ch.  Hist.  I.  p.  493,  Bohn),  by  Baur  Hindoo   doctrine  of   Avatars,  which 
in  his   later  view   (Die    Ckr.   Gnosis  allows    a    natural    origin     for     the 
p.   760,    and   by   Dorner   (Person   of  human  medium  of  the  incarnation. 
Christ   I.  p.  441),  but  supported  by  3  See  Horn.  xvii.  6-19,  and  Baur, 
Credner  (in   Schliemann,    p.   201)   is  Lie  Ckr.  G-nosis  p.  384. 

perhaps  now  confirmed  by  the  testi- 


232  JUDAIZING  REACTION:  LECT.  xiv. 

holding  a  subordinate  place,  still  appear  as  part  of  the 
religious  system ; l  in  the  law  of  antagonism  between  good 
and  evil,  which  was  established  from  the  beginning  in  the 
constitution  of  things,  and  which  appears,  though  in  an 
inverted  order  in  man,  notwithstanding  his  free  will ; 2  in 
the  denial  of  Adam's  transgression,  and  the  consequent 
contemplation  of  the  first  sin,  not  as  a  voluntary  act  of 
rebellion  against  God,  but  as  the  consequence  of  the  same 
law  by  which  evil  exists  in  the  universe  ; 3  in  the  mystical 
character  assigned  to  Adam  as  the  ideal  man,  and  to 
Adam  and  Eve  as  the  ideal  representatives  of  two  opposite 
systems  of  prophecy,  the  masculine  and  feminine  principles, 
to  which  truth  and  error  are  respectively  referred.4  In  all 
these  points  we  may  discern  the  method  and  the  spirit  of 
the  elder  Gnostic  systems,  though  pursued  with  enfeebled 
vigour  and  less  exclusive  interest.  In  this  respect  both 
in  Marcion  and  in  the  antagonistic  Clementine  doctrine 
the  Gnostic  spirit  may  be  regarded  as  in  its  decline,  and 
as  bearing  symptoms  of  transition  to  another  phase  of 
religious  speculation.  The  Christian  faith  was  gradually 
emancipating  itself  from  its  uncongenial  connection  with 
the  problems  of  heathen  philosophy,  and  the  inquiries 
pursued  in  connection  with  it  were  assuming  a  more 
purely  theological  character.  The  doctrine  of  the  Person 
of  Christ,  and  of  His  personal  relation  to  the  Father,  was 
being  disentangled  from  speculations  of  ontology  and 
cosmogony,  and  becoming  the  principal  and  central  point 
of  religious  thought.  And  as  the  diluted  Gnosticism  of 
Marcion  gives  evidence  in  this  respect  of  a  transition  to 
the  Patripassian  theories  of  Praxeas  and  Noetus,  so  the 

1  Horn.  xix.    12,    13,   xx.    2.    Of.  4  Horn.  iii.  22  seq.  Cf.  Schliemann, 
Schliemann,  pp.  154,  521.  p.  177-     This    theory  resembles   the 

2  Horn.  ii.  15,  16.      Of.  Baur,  Die  Pythagorean     (rvvroixia,     in     which 
Chr.  Gnosis  p.  398.  male  and  female  are  placed  as  opposite 

3  Horn.  ii.  16,  52,  iii.  21.  principles  of  good  and  evil. 


LECT.  xiv.     THE  CLEMENTINES,    THE  ELKESAITES.       233 

diluted  Gnosticism  of  the  Clementines  gives  evidence  of  a 
similar  transition  to  the  opposite  form  of  Moriarchianisni, 
the  Humanitarian  heresy  of  Theodotus  and  Artemon. 

As  regards  the  external  history  of  the  pseudo- Clemen- 
tine writings,  the  mention  (which  here  occurs  for  the 
first  time  in  ecclesiastical  literature)1  of  St.  Peter  as 
having  been  Bishop  of  Kome,  and  the  prominence  given 
to  Clement  as  the  Apostle's  supposed  successor,  seem  to 
point  out  the  author,  at  least  of  that  portion  of  the 
work,  as  a  member  of  the  Eoman  Church,  which  even 
then  was  beginning  to  assert  its  supremacy,  though  in  a 
modified  form  and  with  a  subordination  to  the  mother 
church  of  Jerusalem,  whose  Bishop,  St.  James,  appears 
as  the  superior  of  St.  Peter,  and  is  addressed  as  '  Lord 
and  Bishop  of  the  Holy  Church,'  and  c  Bishop  of  Bishops.' 2 
But  though  the  origin  of  the  book  is  probably  Eoman,3 
the  doctrines  which  it  contains  must  be  assigned  to  an 
Eastern  origin,  and  the  conflicting  theories  on  this  ques- 
tion may  perhaps  be  reconciled  with  each  other,  if  we 
suppose  that  at  Eome,  which  at  this  time  was  the  great 
centre  to  which  various  religious  speculations,  orthodox 
and  heterodox,  naturally  converged,  some  philosophically 
educated  Christian,  distracted  by  the  various  doctrines 
around  him,  and  especially  by  the  spread  of  Marcionism, 
had  adopted  the  idea  of  seeking  for  a  primitive  Christi- 
anity in  the  Jewish  birthplace  of  the  faith,  and  had  fancied 

1  Cf.  Gieseler,    E.  H.  I.  pp.  208,  is  maintained  by  Baur,  Schliemann, 
264  (Eng.  Tp.).  Hilgenfeld,  and  Eitschl,  as  well  as  by 

2  The   letter   of    St.    Peter   com-  Gieseler,  E.  H.  I.  p.  206.    Uhlhorn  (in 
mences  ITeVpos  'la/ccojSy   rep  Kvpicp  «al  Herzog,  II.  p.  755)  questions  this,  and 
firiffK^-KCf   TTJS   a-)ias  €KK\i)(ria.s.     The  assigns   the   work  to  Eastern   Syria, 
letter  of  Clement  commences  KA^/*?js  Gieseler's   view   that   the    author  is 
'la/cw/Qoj     T<£     Kvpicp     Kal      €Tnor/co7ra?j>  Roman,   the   doctrine  Eastern,  meets 
fTTiffKOTrcf).      Cf.  Schliemann,  pp.    86,  Uhlhorn's    objections,    while    recog- 
213 ;    Gieseler,     E.     H.    I.    p.    207  nising  what  is  weighty  in  his  argu- 
(Eng.  Tr.).  ments. 

8  The  Koman  origin  of  the  Look 


234  JV  'DAI  ZING  REACTION:  LECT.  XTV. 

himself  to  have  discovered  it  among  the  speculations  of 
judaizing  heresy.1  The  sect  to  whose  doctrines  the 
Clementine  writings  bear  most  affinity,  is  that  mentioned 
by  authors  of  the  next  century,2  under  the  name  of  Elke- 
saites,  who  are  said  to  have  been  so  called  from  one 
Elxai  or  Elchesai,  their  founder,  who  is  probably  a  later 
personification  of  a  Hebrew  appellative  signifying  con- 
cealed power?  According  to  the  statement  of  Epiphanius, 
this  sect  had  its  origin  in  the  region  bordering  on 
the  Dead  Sea,  and  its  disciples  were  originally  called 
Ossenes  (probably  only  a  local  pronunciation  of  Essenes), 
but  were  afterwards,  in  the  reign  of  Trajan,  joined  by 
Elxai,  who  pretended  to  be  a  prophet  and  compiled 
a  book  for  which  he  claimed  Divine  inspiration.4  Of  this 
Elxai,  Epiphanius  adds,  '  He  was  by  birth  a  Jew  and 
held  Jewish  doctrines,  yet  did  not  live  according  to  the 
law.  ...  He  taught  men  to  swear  by  salt,  and  water,  and 
earth,  and  bread,  and  heaven,  and  aether,  and  wind. 
Sometimes  he  speaks  of  seven  other  witnesses,  namely, 


1  Cf.  Grieseler,  E.  H.  I.  p.  20&  his  concealed  power,  may  have  given 

2  The   earliest  writer  who   men-  rise  to  the  names  of  the  two  supposed 
tions  them  is  Hippolytus,  ix.   13,  fol-  brothers   Elxai   and   lexeus.      Other 
lowed  by   Origen    in  Euseb.    H.   E.  less  probable   derivations    are   men- 
vi.  30.     A  fuller  account  is  given  by  tioned  by  Gieseler,  /.  c. 
Epiphanius,    H&r.   xix,  xxx.    3,    17.  4  Hippolytus   (ix.    13)    says   that 
18,  liii  ;  in  the  last  place  under  the  this  book  was  brought  to  Rome  by  one 
name    Samps&i,  which   he   interpret  Alcibiacles  of  Apamea  in  Syria,  who 
TjXiaKoi  (W<QW\  .     Cf.  Grieseler,  E.  H.  described  it  as  a  work  inspired  by  an 
I.   p.    100,    101,   for   these   and   th  anSel   (^ose  dimensions   are   given 
Ossenes.  with      exact     measurements),      and 


D3 
T  : 


brought  from  the  Serse  of  Parthia  by 


_  .  ,          .....  Elchesai,  who  gave  it  to  Sobiai.     The 

Epiphan    Her    xix.  2,  who  however  ^^  mme  ig        babl    derived  from 

does  not  himself  accept  the  derivation.  ^  .         h     book  bei      k 

Grieseler,  E.  H.  I.  p.    100,  aptly  com-  Wk/' 

pares  this  with  the  8  frop»  ^apKO,  of  8ecret  under  an  oafch'     Cf"    Rltschl 

Clem.  Horn.™  16,  and  supposes  that  Altkath-  Kirche  P-    208'    Ori.^en  <in 

the  titles  of  two  books  called  »D3  ^p,  EuS6b'  H'  K  Vl'  30)  alS°  umentlons  ^ 

T  :       -  book,  which,  he   says,    they  regarded 

and  <p?  nj,    the   latter    treating    of  as  haying  fallen  from  heaven- 

the  concealed  Deity,  and  the  former  of 


LECT.  xiv.     THE  CLEMENTINES,    THE  ELKESAITES.       235 

heaven,  and  water,  and  spirits,  and  holy  angels  of 
prayer,  and  oil,  and  salt,  and  earth.  He  is  an  enemy  to 
virginity,  condemns  continency,  and  compels  men  to 
marry.'1  A  little  later  he  adds,  'He  anathematizes 
sacrifices  and  offerings,  and  denies  that  they  were  ap- 
pointed by  God,  or  offered  under  the  law  or  by  the  fathers. 
.  .  .  He  condemns  the  eating  of  flesh  as  practised  by  the 
Jews,  and  the  altar,  and  fire,  as  offensive  to  God, "but 
water  he  approves  as  acceptable.'2  Epiphanius  then 
adds  that  Elxai  also  joined  himself  to  the  Ebionites,  and 
that  he  was  adopted  as  a  teacher  by  four  sects,  the  Ebio- 
nites, two  divisions  of  the  Nazarenes,  and  the  Ossenes.3 
In  a  subsequent  chapter  Epiphanius  tells  us  that  the 
Ebionites,  who  at  first  held  Jesus  to  be  the  son  of  Joseph, 
afterwards  diverged  into  various  opinions,  and  that,  as  he 
supposes,  it  was  after  Elxai  had  joined  them  that  they 
adopted  fanciful  opinions  concerning  Christ,  some  main- 
taining that  He  was  the  same  as  Adam,  the  first  man.4 
Though  there  is  some  chronological  difficulty  in  these 
statements  as  they  are  here  given,5  we  may  at  least  infer 
from  them  with  historical  probability  that  the  Ebionites 
and  the  Elkesaites  were  cognate  sects  derived  from  the 
influence  of  a  spurious  Christianity  on  the  Jewish  Essenes ; 
the  latter,  though  professing  Judaism,  being  less  strict 
observers  of  the  letter  of  the  Jewish  law  than  the  former. 
On  the  authority  of  Origen  we  are  further  told  that  the 

1  Epiphan.  H&r.  xix.  1.    Cf.  Hip-       TOV^VOV, 

polytus,  ix.  15.  5  If   Elxai,    as    both   Hippolytxis 

2  Epiphan.  xix.  3.  (ix.   13)  and  Epiphanius  (Hcer.-x.vs..  1) 

3  Ibid.  xix.  5.  say,  belongs  to  the  reign  of  Trajan,  he 

4  Ibid.  xxx.  3.     Cf.  Hippol.  ix.  14  can  hardly  hare  joined  the  sect  of  the 
rbv  Xpto-rbi/  Se  Ae^et  avQpcairoi'  KOIVUS  Ebionites,  which  (though  some  of  their 
iraffi  yeyovevai  •  -rovrov  Sc  ov  vvv  irptircas  doctrines  had  been  previously  asserted 
fK   irapdevov    ycyevvriaQai,    a\\a    ital  by  Cerinthus  and  Carpocrates)  do  not 
TrpJrepoj'  Kal  avdis  Tro\\aKis  yevv^Bevra  appear  under  this  name  till  after  the 

tl  y€vvw(j.evov  Tre^Tji/eVat  Kal  (pveffdai,       founding  of  ^Elia  by  Hadrian. 
yGv4(reis  Kal 


230  JUDA1ZING  REACTION:  LECT.  xiv. 

Elkesaites  rejected  portions  of  the  Scriptures,  and  the 
whole  of  the  teaching  of  St.  Paul  ;  l  and  Epiphanius  in 
like  manner  says  of  the  Ebionites  of  his  day  (after  their 
teaching  had  been  modified  by  that  of  the  Elkesaites) 
that  they  repudiated  St.  Paul,2  and  that  among  the 
prophets  of  the  Old  Testament  they  accepted  Abraham, 
Isaac,  Jacob,  Moses,  and  Aaron,  and  Joshua,  but  repu- 
diated all  who  came  afterwards,  as  David  and  Solomon, 
Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Daniel,  and  Ezekiel,  as  well  as  Elijah 
and  Elisha,  asserting  that  they  were  not  prophets  of  the 
truth,  but  only  of  intelligence.3  Hippolytus  further  says 
that  the  Elkesaites  used  frequent  baptisms,  employing 
them  not  only  for  the  purification  of  such  of  their 
followers  as  had  committed  deadly  sins,  but  also  as  a  cure 
for  bodily  diseases.4  Epiphanius  professses  to  give  an 
account  of  the  Ebionites  and  Elkesaites  (whom  he  calls 
Sampsseans)5  as  they  existed  in  his  own  day,  some  two 
centuries  later  than  the  probable  origin  of  the  Clemen- 
tines. But  while  the  changes  which  may  have  taken  place 
during  that  interval  will  probably  account  for  a  portion 
at  least  of  the  variations  in  his  description,  the  points 
of  resemblance  which  remain,  between  the  doctrines  and 
practices  of  these  heretics  and  those  advocated  in  the 
Clementines,  can  hardly  be  accounted  for  without  sup- 
posing a  common  origin.  The  Swa/us  KSKa\v^svr],  which 
Epiphanius  gives  as  the  interpretation  of  the  name  Nlxai, 
reminds  us  of  the  invisible  Swa^is  aaap/cos  ascribed  by 


1  Euseb.  H.  E.  vi.  38    dQfr^iriva  5  Epiph.   Hcer.  liii.    1 

cbrb  irdarrjs  ypa^s  .   .   .  rby  air6ffTO\ov  rives    .     .     .    rav    5r?     Kal    'EA/ceeraiW 

reAeoj/  aflerer.  Ka\ovfj.fv(av  aipe<risTis.    Epiphanius  in- 

2  Hcer.  xxx.  16.  terprets  this  name  by  rjXiaicol  (Hebr. 

3  Ibid.    xxx.    18.      By    Trpo^rat  £>)££>    'the    sun')   probably   because 
«nW«r««,  «al  ofcc  fc^fc,  seems  to  be  they"turned,   when  praying,   to    the 
meant  prophets     only      by     human  risi          n>    Gf.  GiesdeT,  Eccl.  Hist.  I. 
sagacity,  not  by  divine  inspiration.  T>   103 

4  Hippol.  ix.  15,  16. 


LECT.  xiv.     THE  CLEMENTINES,    THE  ELKESA1TES.       237 

the  Clementines  to  God  and  angels,1  and  warrants  the 
suspicion  that  the  name,  originally  applied  to  the  book 
which  claimed  a  divine  origin,  and  which  was  even  said 
to  have  fallen  from  heaven,  was  subsequently  understood 
as  designating  a  supposed  founder  of  the  sect.  The 
Jewish  origin  of  this  supposed  Elxai  and  his  departure 
from  the  strict  letter  of  the  law,  answer  to  the  distinction 
drawn  in  the  Clementines  between  true  and  false  Judaism, 
the  latter  including  most,  if  not  all,  of  the  ceremonial 
observances.2  The  mention  of  salt  among  the  things  held 
sacred  by  Elxai  recalls  the  passage  in  the  Clementines 
where  St.  Peter  is  said  to  have  administered  the  Eucharist 
with  bread  and  salt.3  The  compelling  men  to  marry  is 
but  an  exaggeration  of  the  advice  which  St.  Peter  is  re- 
presented as  giving  to  the  Roman  Church.4  The  rejec- 
tion of  sacrifices  is  a  common  feature  in  both  doctrines : 
St.  Peter  in  the  Clementines,  like  Elxai  in  Epiphanius, 
expressly  denying  their  divine  appointment.5  Abstinence 
from  flesh  is  recommended  if  not  commanded  by  both,6 
while  the  condemnation  of  fire  and  approbation  of  water 
corresponds  in  a  remarkable  manner  to  the  words  which 
the  author  of  the  Clementines  puts  into  the  mouth  of  St. 
Peter :  '  Fly  to  the  water,  for  this  alone  can  quench  the 
fury  of  the  fire.' 7  Finally  the  two  remarkable  parallels, 
the  identification  of  Christ  with  Adam,  and  the  rejection 
of  the  later  prophets,  with  the  especial  honour  paid  to  the 
early  patriarchs,8  are  sufficient  to  give  extreme  probability 
to  the  conjecture  that  in  the  Clementine  writings  we 


1  Horn.  xvii.  16.  7  Horn.   xi.   26.  By  the    fire  is 

2  Cf.  Gieseler,  Ecd.  Hist.  I.  p.  100.  meant    the    power  of    the    demons 

3  Horn.  xiv.  1.  (Horn.  ix.  11,    19).  Cf.    Schliemann, 

4  Epist.  Clem.  c.  7.  p.  229. 

5  Horn.  iii.  45,  56.  8  Horn.  iii.  20,  xvii.  9,  10,    xviii. 

6  Horn.  viii.  15.     Cf.  Schliemann,  14,    iii.  22-24,  38.  Cf.  Schliemann 
p.  223.  p.  193. 


238  JUDAIZING  REACTION.  LECT.  xiv. 

possess  a  work  chiefly  exhibiting  the  early  teaching  of  the 
Elkesaite  sect. 

The  work  which  we  have  been  examining  in  this 
lecture  is  the  last  important  monument  of  Gnostic  teach- 
ing. From  this  time  Gnosticism,  while  it  continued  for 
a  season  to  transmit  the  doctrines  of  its  early  speculators, 
cannot  be  regarded  as  originating  any  new  development. 
The  literary  interest  after  this  period  is  transferred  to  the 
Christian  antagonists  of  Gnosticism,  of  whom  it  is  my 
intention  to  attempt  a  brief  notice  before  concluding  this 
course  of  lectures. 


LECT.  xv.  IREN^EUS,   TERTULLIAN.  239 


LECTUEE   XV. 

CHRISTIAN    OPPONENTS    OF    GNOSTICISM,    IBEN^EUS, 
TEKTULLIAN. 

THE  teaching  of  Marcioii  and  the  judaizing  reaction  of 
his  opponent,  the  author  of  the  Clementines,  bring  us  to 
the  beginning  of  the  latter  half  of  the  second  century. 
After  this  date  no  Gnostic  teacher  of  any  eminence  arose, 
and  Gnosticism  may  be  considered  as  having  entered  on 
the  period  of  its  decline,  though  some  of  its  sects  con- 
tinued to  linger  on  till  the  sixth  century.  The  chief 
literary  interest  of  the  latter  part  of  the  second  and  the 
beginning  of  the  third  century  turns  upon  the  writings  of 
those  Fathers  of  the  Christian  Church  who  came  forward 
as  the  antagonists  of  Gnosticism.  The  principal  of  these 
are  Irenteus,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  and  Tertullian,  to 
whom  must  now  be  added  Hippolytus,  Bishop  of  Portus, 
the  greater  part  of  whose  work  on  the  '  Refutation  of  all 
Heresies,'1  having  been  long  lost,  was  recovered  and 
published  in  the  year  1851  under  the  title,  generally 
acknowledged  to  be  incorrect,  of  the  '  Philosophumena 
of  Origen.'2 

The  earliest  of  these  Fathers,  Irenaeus  Bishop  of  Lyons, 
is  the  author  of  a  work  usually  quoted  as  the  c  Five  Books 

1  See   books  iv-x.     Book  i  had  p.  872. 

been  previously  known  and  printed  2  Origenis    Philosophumena,    sive 

among   Origen's  works,    though   ac-  Omnium  Hceresium  Refutatio ;   e  Co 

knowledged  by  the  best  critics  not  to  dice    Parisino    nunc    primum    edidit 

be  his.     See  De  la  Kue's  Origen,  I.  Emmanuel  Miller.     Oxon.  1851. 


240     CHRISTIAN  OPPONENTS  OF  GNOSTICISM:    LECT.  xv. 

against  Heresies,'  but  of  which  the  proper  title  is,  '  Five 
Books  of  the  Refutation  and  Overthrow  of  Knowledge 
falsely  SO  called'  (' EX^^ou  /cal  avarpoTrrjs  7779  tycvbwvvfjuov 
<yvct)crsa)s  pi(B\ia  Trsvrs).1  Of  this  work  the  greater  part  of 
the  original  text  is  lost,  but  the  whole  survives  in  a 
barbarous  Latin  translation,  probably  executed  not  more 
than  ten  or  fifteen  years  after  the  original.  The  work 
itself  may  with  good  reason  be  placed  somewhere  between 
A.D.  182  and  188,2  and  the  translation,  having  been  used 
by  Tertullian,  can  hardly  have  been  composed  later  than 
the  end  of  the  same  century.3 

Of  the  five  books  of  which  the  work  of  Irenseus  is 
composed,  the  first  is  mainly  devoted  to  a  historical 
account  of  various  Gnostic  heresies,  chiefly  of  the  Ptole- 
msean  branch  of  the  Valentiiiians,  with  whose  system  the 
author  had  become  acquainted  both  by  a  study  of  the 
writings  in  which  it  was  contained  and  by  personal  inter- 
course with  some  members  of  the  sect.4  An  account  of 
the  doctrines  of  these  heretics  is  given  in  the  first  nine 
chapters  of  the  work.  After  this,  by  way  of  contrast  to 
the  heretical  teaching,  there  follows  a  declaration  of  the 
faith  of  the  Catholic  Church  throughout  the  world,  which 
is  remarkable,  both  as  the  earliest  distinct  statement  of 
that  faith  formally  drawn  up  in  a  series  of  propositions,5 
and  also  for  its  complete  conformity  in  substance,  and 
nearly  in  language,  with  the  creeds  afterwards  formally 
adopted  by  the  Church,  especially  with  the  Eastern  type, 

1  Eusebius,   H.    E.    v.    7-      (Cf.       of  Roman  bishops  given  iii.  3.     Cf. 
Harvey's  Irencem  I.  p.  cbdii ;    Mas-       Harvey,  I.  p.  clviii. 

suet,  Diss.  ii.  §  46).     This  title  is  also  3  Tertullian  uses  it  in  his  treatise 

acknowledged  by  Irenseus  himself  in  against    the    Valentinians,     written 

the  Preface  to  bk.  ii.  probably  early  in  the  third  century. 

2  It  was  composed  after  Theodo-  On  this,  see  Massuet,  Diss.  ii.  §  53. 
tion's  translation  of  the  0.  T.  A.D.  181,  4  Irenseus,  i.  1.  2. 

which  is  mentioned  by  Irenseus,  iii.  21.  5  Cf.  Heurtley,  Harmonia  Si/mbo- 

ancl  before  the  death  of  Pope  Eleu-       lica  p.  5  seq. 
therus,  A.D.   189,  who  closes  the  list 


LECT.  xv.  IREN&US,   TERTULLIAN.  241 

as  represented  by  the  Nicene  Creed.1  'The  Church,5  he 
says,  '  throughout  the  world,  spread  out  as  she  is  to  the 
ends  of  the  earth,  carefully  preserves  the  faith  that  she 
received  from  the  Apostles  and  from  their  disciples,  be- 
lieving in  one  God,  the  Father  Almighty,  who  made 
heaven  and  earth,  the  seas  and  all  that  in  them  is ;  and 
in  one  Christ  Jesus,  the  Son  of  God,  who  was  incarnate 
for  our  salvation ;  and  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  by  the 
prophets  proclaimed  the  dispensations  and  the  advents  of 
our  dear  Lord  Christ  Jesus,  and  His  birth  of  a  Virgin, 
and  His  suffering,  and  His  resurrection  from  the  dead, 
and  His  ascension  in  the  flesh  into  heaven,  and  His 
coming  from  heaven  in  the  glory  of  the  Father  to  sum  up 
all  things,  and  to  raise  up  all  flesh  of  the  whole  human 
race ;  that  to  Christ  Jesus,  our  Lord  and  God  and 
Saviour  arid  King,  according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  the 
invisible  Father,  every  knee  should  bow,  of  things  in 
heaven  and  things  on  earth  and  things  under  the  earth 
and  that  every  tongue  should  confess  Him,  and  that  He 
should  have  righteous  judgment  upon  all.'2  'The  Church,' 
he  continues,  '  scattered  as  she  is  over  the  whole  world, 
having  received  this  message  and  this  faith,  diligently 
guards  it,  as  though  she  inhabited  but  one  house ;  and 
her  faith  is  conformable  to  these  doctrines,  as  though  she 
had  but  one  soul  and  one  heart ;  and  she  preaches  these 
things  harmoniously,  and  teaches  and  hands  them  on,  as 
though  she  had  but  one  mouth.  For,  dissimilar  as  the 
languages  of  the  world  may  be,  still  the  power  of  the 
tradition  is  one  and  the  same;  and  neither  have  the 
churches  established  in  Germany  believed  otherwise  or 
transmitted  any  other  doctrine,  nor  those  of  Spain,  nor 

1  Heurtley,  Harmonia   Symbolica      History  and    Theology  of  the   Three 
p.  6.  Creeds  vol.  I.  pp.  43,  44. 

2  Irenseus,  i.  10.  1.      See  Harvey, 


242      CHRISTIAN  OPPONENTS  OF  GNOSTICISM.    LECT.  xv. 

those  among  the  Celts,  nor  in  the  East,  nor  in  Egypt,  nor 
in  Libya,  nor  those  established  in  the  middle  of  the  world. 
But  as  the  sun,  the  creature  of  God,  is  one  and  the  same 
in  all  the  world,  such  also  is  the  preaching  of  the  truth  in 
its  universal  phase,  enlightening  all  men  who  wish  to 
approach  the  knowledge  of  the  truth.  He  that  among 
the  Bishops  of  the  Church  is  mightiest  in  the  word  speaks 
no  other  doctrine  than  this,  for  none  is  above  his  Master ; 
neither  shall  he  that  is  weak  in  the  word  be  found  to 
minish  aught  of  the  tradition ;  for,  the  faith  being  one  and 
the  same,  he  that  hath  much  to  say  concerning  it  hath 
nothing  over,  and  he  that  hath  little  hath  no  lack.'1  After 
this  emphatic  declaration  of  the  unity  of  the  Catholic 
faith,  Irenseus  proceeds  to  contrast  it  with  the  diversity 
of  opinions  put  forth  by  various  teachers  of  heresy,  even 
within  the  school  of  Yalentinus ; 2  the  contrast  being  sub- 
sequently heightened  by  a  further  account  of  the  different 
opinions  of  the  earlier  Gnostic  sects  from  Simon  Magus 
downwards.3  This  list  includes  Simon  Magus  and  Me- 
nander  (c.  xxiii),  Saturninus  and  Basilides  (c.  xxiv), 
Carpocrates  (c.  xxv),  Cerinthus,  the  Ebionites  and  the 
Nicolaitans  (c.  xxvi),  Cerdon  and  Marcion  (c.  xxvii), 
Tatian  and  the  Encratites  (c.  xxviii),  and  finally  various 
branches  of  the  Ophites  (cc.  xxix-xxxi).4  This  part  of  the 
work  is  chiefly  historical,  and  the  materials  which  it  sup- 
plies have  been  made  use  of  in  the  preceding  lectures. 

The  second  book  of  Irenseus  is  chiefly  devoted  to  a 
philosophical  refutation  of  the  tenets  of  the  Yalentinians 
(other  Gnostics  being  incidentally  noticed),  interspersed 
with  criticisms  on  their  false  interpretations  of  Scripture. 

1  Irenaeus,  i.  10.  2.  Of.  Harvey,       identified  by  Theodoret,  H.  F.  i.  13, 
I.  c.  p.  45.  with  the  Naassenes,  of  whom  a  fuller 

2  cc.  11-21.  account  is  given   by  Hippolytus,    v. 

3  cc.  23-31.  6-11. 

4  The  Barbelists   of  c.  xxix  are 


LECT.  xv.  IRENJEUS,    TERTULLIAN.  243 

The  philosophical  arguments  are  mainly  directed  to  the 
following  points :  1 .  To  maintain  the  unity  of  God,  and 
the  absurdity  of  the  Gnostic  separation  between  the 
Supreme  God  and  the  Creator  of  the  world  (cc.  i-vi). 
2.  To  overthrow  'the  Platonic  hypothesis  of  a  corre- 
spondence between  the  intelligible  and  the  visible  world, 
on  which  so  many  of-  the  Valentinian  theories  rested  (cc. 
vii,  viii).  3.  To  point  out  the  absurdities  and  inconsis- 
tencies in  the  details  of  the  Yalentinian  theory,  and  in  the 
arguments  by  which  it  is  supported  (cc.  xii-xix).  After  this 
follows  a  refutation  of  the  false  interpretation  ot  Scripture 
which  these  Gnostics  adduced  in  support  of  their  theories 
(cc.  xx-xxiii) ;  a  criticism  of  the  mystical  signification 
attached,  particularly  by  the  Marcosians,  to  numbers, 
letters,  and  syllables  (cc.  xxiv-xxvi) ;  and  some  judicious 
remarks  on  the  plain,  natural,  and  universally  intelligible 
mode  of  interpreting  Scripture,  as  distinguished  from  the 
secret  and  fanciful  meanings  which  the  Gnostics  adopted, 
and  which  any  man  can  invent  according  to  his  own  imagi- 
nation (c.  xxvii).  Then  follow  some  wise  remarks  on  the 
limitation  of  man's  knowledge,  on  the  duty  of  leaving 
many  mysteries  unsolved,  the  knowledge  of  which  belongs 
to  God  alone,  and  of  believing  in  revealed  truths  con- 
cerning Divine  things,  though  we  cannot  comprehend  the 
manner  in  which  they  are  as  they  are  revealed  to  be  (c. 
xxviii).  Then  follows  a  refutation  of  some  of  the  remain- 
ing details  of  the  Gnostic  doctrines,  as  regards  the  future 
destiny  of  the  soul  and  the  body  (c.  xxix),  and  their  own 
claims  to  a  superior  spiritual  nature  (c.  xxx).  To  this 
succeeds  an  application  of  the  preceding  argument  to 
other  sects  besides  the  Valentinians  (c.  xxxi) ;  a  denun- 
ciation of  the  licentious  doctrines  and  practices  of  some  of 
these  heretics  (c.  xxxii) ;  a  refutation  of  the  theory  of 
transmigration,  and  a  vindication  of  the  consciousness  of 

R   2 


244     CHRISTIAN  OPPONENTS  OF  GNOSTICISM.    LECT.  xv. 

the  soul  in  its  separate  state  after  death  (cc.  xxxiii, 
xxxiv) ;  and  finally,  a  refutation  of  those  who  maintained 
that  the  prophets  were  inspired  by  different  gods  (c. 
xxxv) . 

The  third  book  is  chiefly  occupied  with  a  refutation 
from  Scripture  of  the  heretical  opinions  of  the  Gnostics  ; 
first,  concerning  the  unity  of  God ;  and  secondly,  concern- 
ing the  person  of  Christ.  After  asserting  the  superior 
authority  of  the  Apostles,  as  inspired  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
over  these  pretended  teachers  of  a  higher  knowledge  (c.  i), 
Irenseus  proceeds  to  show  that  the  Gnostic  tradition  was 
not  known  to  the  Church  in  the  West  or  in  the  East, 
neither  to  the  Koman  Church  which  was  founded  by  St. 
Peter  and  St.  Paul,  whose  Bishops  he  enumerates  down 
to  his  own  time,  nor  to  the  Asiatic  Churches,  as  repre- 
sented by  his  own  teacher  Polycarp,  the  disciple  of  St. 
John.  These  agree  in  one  primitive  faith,  while,  on  the 
contrary,  the  doctrines  of  these  several  sects  were  never 
heard  of  before  the  time  of  the  heresiarchs  whose  names 
they  bear  (cc.  ii-iv).  He  then  proceeds  to  show  that  the 
Scriptures,  both  of  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament,  agree 
in  teaching  that  there  is  but  one  God,  the  Father  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  Maker  of  all  things,  and  do 
not  give  the  name  of  God  or  Lord  to  any  other  (cc.  v-xii) ; 
in  the  course  of  which  argument  he  takes  occasion  to 
assert  the  canon icity  and  the  inspiration  of  the  four  re- 
ceived Gospels,  and  of  these  alone,  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
false  Gospels  used  by  the  heretics,  and  points  out  the 
characteristics  of  each  as  typified  by  the  four  living  crea- 
tures of  the  Apocalypse  (c.  xi).  He  then  proceeds  to 
refute  those  who  attempted  to  establish  an  antagonism 
between  the  teaching  of  St.  Paul  and  that  of  the  other 
Apostles,  whether  on  the  side  of  the  Marcionites  who 
accepted  St.  Paul  alone,  or  of  the  Ebionites  who  rejected 


LECT.  xv.  IRENJ2US,   TERTULLIAN.  245 

him ;  and  he  cites  St.  Paul's  own  testimony  that  one  and 
the  same  God  wrought  in  Peter  to  the  Apostleship  of  the 
Circumcision,  and  in  himself  toward  the  Gentiles  1  (cc. 
xiii-xv).  Proceeding  then  to  the  Gnostic  heresies  con- 
cerning the  distinction  of  the  2Eon  Christ  from  the  man 
Jesus,  he  shows  that  the  Apostolic  writings  unanimously 
acknowledge  but  one  Christ  Jesus,  and  that  the  Being 
who  descended  upon  our  Lord  at  His  baptism  was  not  the 
2Eon  Christ,  but  the  Holy  Ghost  (cc.  xvi-xviii).  He 
then  proves,  on  the  same  authority,  the  pre-existence  and 
the  real  incarnation  and  suffering  of  Christ,  and  that  He 
is  very  God,  the  eternal  Son  of  the  Father,  and  very  Man, 
born  of  the  Virgin  Mary  for  our  salvation  (cc.  xix-xxii). 
In  the  course  of  this  argument  he  vindicates  the  prophecy 
of  Isaiah  (vii.  14)  from  the  misinterpretation  of  the 
Ebionites  and  the  later  Jews,  and  shows  that  the  Sep- 
tuagint  translation,  rj  irapOsvos,  is  the  true  rendering,  and 
not  77  vzavis,  which  is  substituted  in  the  later  versions  of 
Aquila  and  Theodotion  (c.  xxi).  He  then  refutes  the 
arguments  of  Tatian  against  the  salvation  of  Adam  (c. 
xxiii),  and  concludes  with  a  recapitulation  of  his  previous 
positions,  and  a  re-assertion  of  the  unity  and  providence 
of  God  (cc.  xxiv,  xxv). 

The  early  part  of  the  fourth  book  is  employed  chiefly  in 
showing,  from  the  testimony  of  our  Lord  Himself,  that  He 
acknowledged  but  one  God  and  Father,  and  that  this  God 
and  Father  is  the  same  who  was  proclaimed  of  old  by 
Moses  and  the  prophets,  speaking  the  words  of  Christ. 
With  this  argument  is  united  a  refutation  of  the  Gnostic 
perversions  of  our  Lord's  words  to  support  their  own 
theories  (cc.  i-vii).  Irenseus  then  refutes  the  false  teaching 
of  Marcion,  who  endeavoured  to  exclude  Abraham  and  his 
posterity  from  salvation  through  Christ,  and  shows  that 

1  Gal.  ii.  8. 


246     CHRISTIAN  OPPONENTS  OF  GNOSTICISM.    LECT.  xv. 

there  is  one  Author  and  one  End  of  both  the  Covenants,  and 
that  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  foretold  Christ,  thus 
showing  that  they  were  inspired  by  one  and  the  same  God 
from  whom  Christ  came  (cc.  viii-xi).  He  then  shows  that 
Christ  confirmed  the  moral  precepts  of  the  law  while  con- 
demning the  traditions  of  the  elders  which  were  contrary 
to  the  law,  and  that  those  ceremonial  and  typical  obser- 
,  vances  which  are  no  longer  in  force  were  necessary  for  the 
discipline  and  correction  of  the  Jewish  people  until  Christ 
should  come  (cc.  xii-xvi).  He  then  goes  on  to  main- 
tain that  oblations  still  continue  in  the  Church,  though 
the  name  of  them  is  changed;  that  the  prophecy  of 
Malachi  (i.  10,  11)  that  the  Jewish  sacrifices  should 
cease,  and  yet  that  a  pure  offering  should  be  offered  in 
every  place  to  the  Lord,  is  fulfilled  in  the  Eucharist,  in 
which  the  Church  offers  to  God  the  first-fruits  of  His 
creatures,  not  as  needed  by  God,  but  as  giving  thanks  to 
God  and  as  sanctifying  the  creatures  (cc.  xvii,  xviii). 
Erom  this  argument  the  author  returns  to  the  question  of 
the  unity  of  that  God,  of  whose  spiritual  things  these 
earthly  things  are  the  type ;  who,  though  invisible  and 
unspeakable  as  regards  His  nature  and  magnitude  (qualis 
et  quantus  est),  is  manifested,  as  regards  His  love,  through 
His  works,  and  is  revealed  through  Christ  His  Word  (cc. 
xix,  xx).  The  author  then  goes  011  to  say  that  Abraham's 
faith  was  identical  with  ours,  and  that  Christ  came  for 
the  sake  of  the  patriarchs  of  old  as  well  as  of  the  men  of 
later  times;  that  the  patriarchs  and  prophets  foretold 
Christ,  and  thus  prepared  the  way  for  the  preaching  of 
the  Apostles  ;  and  that  the  true  exposition  of  the  Scrip- 
tures is  that  given  by  the  Church  (cc.  xxi-xxvi).  The 
book  concludes  with  a  vindication  of  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures  against  the  cavil  which  had  been  raised  against 
them  by  the  Gnostics,  chiefly  by  the  school  of  Marcion, 


IECT.  xv.  IRENsEUS,    TERTULLIAN.  2.47 

as  regards  the  sins  of  the  patriarchs,  which,  he  says 
(citing  the  teaching  of  a  presbyter  who  had  been  in- 
structed by  the  disciples  of  the  Apostles1),  were  recorded 
for  our  warning  and  instruction;  as  regards  the  judgment 
of  God  against  sinners,  on  which  point  the  Old  Testament 
is  not  contrary  to  the  New ;  and  as  regards  the  hardening 
of  Pharaoh's  heart  and  the  spoiling  of  the  Egyptians, 
which  he  defends  by  arguments  similar  to  those  after- 
wards advanced  by  Tertulliaii  in  his  treatise  against  Mar- 
cion  (cc.  xxvii— xxx). 

The  fifth  book  is  chiefly  devoted  to  a  refutation  of  the 
Gnostic  opinions  concerning  the  Eesurrection  of  the  Body. 
In  opposition  to  the  Yalentinians  on  the  one  side,  and  to 
the  Ebionites  on  the  other,  he  maintains  the  true  Humanity 
and  the  true  Divinity  of  Christ,  and  shows  how  both  are 
necessary  to  the  truth  of  our  Lord  Himself,  and  to  the 
redemption  of  mankind.  In  opposition  to  those  who 
deny  that  the  flesh  is  capable  of  salvation,  he  appeals  to 
our  redemption  by  the  blood  of  Christ  and  to  our  par- 
taking of  His  body  and  blood  in  the  Eucharist,  by  which 
our  bodies  are  nourished  and  preserved  to  everlasting  life 
(cc.  i,  ii).  He  asserts  that  God,  who  was  able  to  create 
man's  body,  is  equally  able  to  raise  it  from  the  dead  ;  and 
that  the  body,  which  was  worthy  of  God's  care  in  the  one 
case,  is  not  less  so  in  the  other ;  His  strength,  as  St.  Paul 
said  of  his  own  infirmity,2  being  made  perfect  in  weakness 
(c.  iii) .  He  urges  that  the  heretics  themselves  who  deny 
that  God  raises  up  the  body  may  be  refuted  on  their  own 
principles,  for  they  make  God  either  less  powerful  or  less 
gracious  than  their  own  pretended  Demiurge,  who  made 
the  body  (c.  iv).  He  appeals  to  the  power  of  God  over- 

1  Who  this  presbyter    was,   can  the  predecessor  of  Irenseus  in  the  see 

only  be  conjectured  ;    Polycarp,   Pa-  of  Lyons,  is  intended, 
pias,  Clement,  Justin,  have  been  sug-  2  2  Cor.  xii.  9. 

gested.  Harvey  thinks  that  Pothinus, 


248      CHRISTIAN  OPPONENTS  OF  GNOSTICISM.    LECT.  xv. 

coming  the  infirmity  of  the  flesh,  as  shown  in  the  longevity 
of  the  patriarchs  before  the  Flood,  in  the  translation  of 
Enoch  and  Elijah,  and  in  the  preservation  of  Jonah  in  the 
belly  of  the  whale,  and  of  Ananias,  Azarias,  and  Misael  in 
the  fiery  furnace  (c.  v).  He  shows  that  to  the  perfection 
of  man  the  body  is  needed  as  well  as  the  soul  and  the 
spirit,  and  cites  the  prayer  of  St.  Paul  for  the  Thessa- 
lonians,1  that  their  whole  spirit  and  soul  and  body  might 
be  preserved  blameless  unto  the  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  his  declaration  to  the  Corinthians2  that  their 
bodies  are  the  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  the  members 
of  Christ  (c.  vi).  He  urges  the  resurrection  of  Christ  with 
His  body,  the  language  of  St.  Paul  on  the  resurrection"  of 
the  body,3  and  the  spiritual  gifts  vouchsafed  to  man  while 
in  the  body ;  and  refutes  the  heretical  perversion  of  St. 
Paul's  words,4  '  Flesh  and  blood  cannot  inherit  the  king- 
dom of  God,'  by  showing  that,  it  refers  to  carnal-minded 
men,  not  to  the  body  as  incapable  of  resurrection,  and  that 
the  works  of  the  flesh  are  contrasted  by  the  Apostle  with 
the  works  of  the  Spirit  (cc.  vii-xii).  He  then  appeals  to 
the  miracles  of  our  Lord  in  raising  up  the  daughter  of 
Jairus,  the  widow's  son,  and  Lazarus,  as  a  type  of  our 
resurrection  hereafter  in  the  same  bodies,  and  cites  various 
passages  in  proof  of  the  same  truth  from  the  Epistles  of 
St.  Paul  (c.  xiii).  He  then  proceeds  to  show  that  the 
flesh  and  blood  of  Christ  were  of  the  same  nature  with 
those  of  other  men,  and  cites  St.  Paul  in  proof  of  this ; 
and  thus  shows  again  that  it  is  impossible  with  any  con- 
sistency to  adopt  the  Gnostic  interpretation  of  their 
favourite  text,  '  Flesh  and  blood  cannot  inherit  the  king- 
dom of  God  '  (c.  xiv).  He  then  proceeds  to  show  how  the 

1  1  Thess.  v.  23.  3  1  Cor.  xv. 

2  1  Cor.  iii.  16,  vi.  15.  4  1  Cor.  xv.  50. 


LECT.  xv.  IRENJZUS,   TERTULLIAN.  249 

same  truth  is  indicated  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  thence 
again  argues  for  the  identity  of  the  God  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment with  the  God  of  the  New,  and  for  the  efficacy  of  the 
redemption  effected  by  Christ's  birth  from  a  woman,  as 
co-extensive  with  the  evil  sustained  by  Adam's  fall  through 
a  woman  (cc.  xv-xix).  He  then  repeats  the  argument  in 
the  third  book,  contrasting  the  novelty  and  variety  of  the 
heretical  theories  with  the  primitive  character  and  unity 
of  the  teaching  of  the  Church,  and  exhorts  to  obedience 
to  the  teaching  of  the  Church,  and  to  Christ,  the  Head  of 
all  things  in  heaven  and  in  earth,1  the  promised  Seed  of 
the  woman,  who  bruised  the  head  of  the  serpent  by  over- 
coming the  temptations  addressed  to  His  human  nature, 
and  thus  again  showed  the  unity  of  God  in  the  Law  and 
in  the  Gospel  (cc.  xx-xxii).  Irenseus  then  proceeds  to 
speak  of  the  works  of  the  Devil  as  a  liar  from  the  begin- 
ning, in  hostility  to  Christ,  and  of  the  future  coming  of 
Antichrist  in  the  power  of  the  Devil,  as  foretold  by  the 
prophet  Daniel,  by  St.  Paul,  and  by  St.  John  in  the 
Apocalypse  (cc.  xxiii-xxvi).  He  then  proceeds  to  speak 
of  the  future  coming  of  Christ  to  judge  the  world,  and  to 
separate  the  sheep  from  the  goats,  and  of  the  eternity  of 
reward  on  one  side  and  of  punishment  on  the  other,  and 
of  the  great  apostacy  which  shall  precede  Christ's  coming 
(cc.  xxvii,  xxviii).  This  gives  occasion  to  speak  of  the 
number  of  the  name  of  Antichrist,  and  the  various 
attempts  which  had  been  made  or  might  be  made  to 
explain  it ;  on  which  he  judiciously  remarks  that  some  of 
these  explanations  are  plausible,  but  that,  had  it  been  in- 
tended that  the  prediction  should  be  understood  at  the 
present  time,  it  would  have  been  explained  by  the  Apostle 
himself  who  beheld  the  vision,  not  very  long  ago,  but  as 
late  as  towards  the  end  of  the  reign  of  Domitian  (cc.  xxix, 

1  Ephes.  i.  10. 


250     CHRISTIAN  OPPONENTS  OF  GNOSTICISM.    LECT.  xv. 

xxx).  The  author  then  returns  to  the  original  question 
of  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  adduces  the  fact  of 
Christ's  burial  and  resurrection  as  an  argument  against  the 
Gnostic  assumption  of  an  immediate  ascent  to  the  Pleroma 
of  the  soul  separated  from  the  body  (c.  xxxi).  He  then 
says  that  it  is  just  that  those  who  have  suffered  in  the 
body  should  also  be  recompensed  in  the  body  (c.  xxxii), 
and  then  proceeds  to  describe  the  future  kingdom  of  Christ 
as  it  is  foretold  in  Scripture.  He  argues  in  behalf  of  a 
literal  millennial  reign  of  Christ  on  earth  with  His  risen 
saints,  and  quotes,  among  genuine  texts  of  Scripture,  a 
strange  apocryphal  saying  attributed  to  our  Lord  on  the 
testimony  of  Papias.  After  the  millennium  will  come  the 
general  resurrection  and  the  judgment,  and  the  new 
heaven  and  earth  where  men  shall  dwell  with  God 
(cc.  xxxiii-xxxvi) .  With  this  description  the  work 
ends. 

As  the  writings  of  Irenseus  are  directed  principally 
against  the  Valentinian  branch  of  the  Gnostics,  so  those 
of  Tertulliaii  are  directed  chiefly,  though  not  exclusively, 
against  the  school  of  Marcion.  It  is  scarcely  possible 
to  imagine  a  greater  contrast  of  character  than  between 
the  gentle  and  modest  though  zealous  Irenseus,1  and  the 
rough,  fiery,  one-sided  Tertullian ;  and  this  difference 
appears  in  their  respective  modes  of  dealing  with  their 
subject,  except  where,  as  in  Tertullian's  treatise  against 
the  Valentinians,  he  does  little  more  than  copy  his 
predecessor.  Three  works  of  Tertullian  may  be  selected 
as  his  principal  contributions  to  the  controversy  against 
Gnosticism — the  c  Prsescriptio  adversus  Hsereticos,'  the 
tract  against  the  Yaleiitinians,  and  the  five  books  against 
Marcion.2  Of  these  the  two  last  are  generally  allowed  to 

1    6   p.tv  EtpTji/cuos    (pepiavv^s    ris       elpyvoirods,  Euseb.  H.  E.  v.  24. 
&v  rfj  Trpoa-riyopi^  avry  re  TO>  Tp6irci>  2  Three    minor     works   may    be 


LECT.XV.  IREN&US,   TERTULLIAN.  251 

have  been  written  after  tlieir  author  became  a  Montanist;1 
the  first  is  of  doubtful  date,  but  may  with  considerable 
probability  be  assigned  to  a  period  before  his  secession 
from  the  Church.2 

The  c  Prsescriptio  adversus  Hsereticos '  is  accepted  as  a 
genuine  work  of  Tertullian  down  to  the  middle  of  the 
forty-fifth  chapter ;  the  latter  part  of  the  work,  which  is 
chiefly  historical,  is  a  subsequent  addition  by  another 
hand.3  The  term  Prcescriptio  is  used  in  its  legal  sense  of 
an  exception  or  demurrer  ;  and  the  title  is  characteristic  of 
the  temper  of  the  man.  Tertullian  proposes  to  put  the 
heretics  eo  nomine  out  of  court,  as  teaching  a  new  doctrine 
contrary  to  the  traditions  of  the  Church,  and  therefore 
not  entitled  to  a  hearing.  He  says  that  we  must  not 
be  surprised  that  heresies  are  permitted  to  exist  for 
the  trial  of  men's  faith,  but  that  our  duty  is  to  avoid  them 
as  we  would  some  deadly  sickness;  that  they  are  foretold, 
and  at  the  same  time  condemned  beforehand  in  Scripture; 
that  they  are  the  offspring  of  a  perverse  will  and  idle 
curiosity,  doctrines  of  demons,  borrowed  from  heathen 
philosophy,  with  which  Christians  ought  to  have  nothing 
to  do  (cc.  i-vii).  He  meets  the  objection  that  men  are 
bidden  to  seek  and  they  shall  find,4  by  the  reply  that  this 
precept  is  addressed  to  those  who  are  not  yet  Christians, 
but  that  those  who  have  received  the  faith  must  not  seek 
any  other ;  that  they  who  are  always  seeking  will  never  find 
anything  to  believe ;  that  the  Church  has  a  rule  of  faith 

added,    treating    of      special    points  resurrection    of    the  body.      For  an 

taught  by  some  of  the  Gnostics.     The  account  of  them,  see  Bp.  Kaye,   Ter- 

Scorpiace,  written  to  enforce  the  duty  ftf&'o»pp.  141,  251,  256. 

of  martyrdom  in  preference  to  idola-  '  See  Bp.  Kaye,  Tertullian  pp.  52, 

try;  the   treatise   De  Came   Christi,  55. 

written  against  those  who  denied  the  2  See    Neander,   Antignosticus  p. 

reality   of    Christ's    body;    and   the  425  seq.  (Eng.  Tr.). 

De  Eesurrectione  Carnis,  which   con-  a  Ibid.  p.  426. 

tains  arguments   similar  to  those  of  4  Matt.  vii.  7. 

Irenseus  against  those  who  denied  the 


252      CHRISTIAN  OPPONENTS  OF  GNOSTICISM.    LECT.  xv. 

to  be  accepted  without  further  seeking  (cc.  viii-xiv).  This 
rule  of  faith  he  exhibits  in  the  form  of  a  creed,  in  sub- 
stance agreeing  with  that  professed  by  Irenseus,  but  in 
language  more  nearly  approaching  to  the  Roman  type, 
which  received  its  ultimate  form  in  the  Apostles'  Creed  l 
(c.  xiii) .  After  these  preliminary  remarks  Tertullian  pro- 
ceeds to  lay  down  his  main  proposition,  namely,  that 
heretics  should  not  be  admitted  by  orthodox  believers  to 
any  disputation  concerning  the  Scriptures,  which  they 
interpret  differently  from  the  Church.  This  prcescriptio 
he  maintains  on  the  following  grounds  : — 1.  Because  per- 
verse disputings,  especially  with  heretics,  are  forbidden 
by  St.  Paul2  (c.  xvi).  2.  Because  the  heretics  reject  or 
corrupt  Scripture,  and  therefore  no  advantage  can  be 
gained  by  disputing  with  them  (cc.  xvii,  xviii).  3.  Be- 
cause the  faith  was  committed  by  Christ  to  the  Apostles 
and  their  successors,  and  no  other  teachers  should  be 
sought  than  those  who  were  instructed  in  all  truth  by 
Christ  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  who  taught  no  secret 
doctrine  beyond  that  which  has  been  handed  down  by 
the  Church  (cc.  xix-xxvi).  4.  Because  the  truth  of 
the  teaching  of  the  Church  is  proved  by  its  unity 
and  antiquity,  and  the  error  of  heresies  by  their 
diversity  and  novelty  (cc.  xxvii-xxxi).  5.  Because,  if 
there  be  any  older  heresies  going  back  to  the  Apostolic 
age,  they  have  no  succession  of  bishops  to  preserve  their 
continuity  as  a  Church  (c.  xxxii).  6.  Because  the  earliest 
heresies  were  condemned  by  the  Apostles  themselves 
(cc.  xxxiii,  xxxiv).  He  then  shows  that  none  of  the 
above  prcescriptio  applies  to  the  Catholic  Church  (cc. 
xxxv,  xxxvi),  and  further  urges  against  the  heretics  that, 

1  Cf.  Heurtley,  Harmonica  Symbo-  Virg.  Velandis,  c.  1 . 
lica  p.    14.     Another   citation  of  a  -  He  refers  to  1    Tim.  vi.  4,  and 

creed  more  nearly  approaching  to  the  Titus  iii.  10. 
exact  form  is  given  by  Tertullian,  De 


LECT.  xv.  IRENsEUS,    TERTULLIAN.  253 

not  being  Christians,  they  have  no  share  in  the  Christian 
Scriptures ;  that  they  have  perverted  and  mutilated  the 
Scriptures ;  that  their  teaching  is  from  the  Devil,  intro- 
ducing profane  imitations  of  Christian  rites  ;  that  in  their 
religious  services  they  observe  no  distinction  of  orders 
and  degrees,  and  show  no  reverence  to  their  own  rulers ; 
and  finally,  that  they  are  guilty  of  magical  practices 
(cc.  xxxvii-xliii).  Lastly,  he  denounces  future  judgment 
against  the  heretics  and  those  who  unite  with  them 
(c.  xliv). 

It  will  be  observed  that  Tertnllian,  like  Irenseus, 
appeals  to  the  unity  and  primitive  character  of  the 
Church's  teaching  as  handed  down  from  the  Apostles 
through  their  successors  the  Bishops,  and  contrasts  it  with 
the  variety  and  novelty  of  the  Gnostic  theories.  Yet, 
though  appealing  to  the  same  authority,  the  two  Fathers 
do  so  in  a  different  spirit,  according  to  the  diversity  of 
their  own  characters.  Irenseus,  while  insisting  on  the 
Church's  rule  of  faith,  expresses  the  conviction  that  this 
rule  may  be  obtained  by  the  sound  independent  exposition 
of  Holy  Writ,  as  well  as  by  tradition.1  To  him  it  was 
something  certain  in  itself,  and  the  two  sources  of  know- 
ledge proceeded  independently,  side  by  side.  Tertullian 
went  further.  He  made  the  traditions  of  the  Church  a 
standard  of  Scripture  exposition,  and  denied  the  com- 
petence of  heretics  to  expound  the  Scriptures  at  all,  so  far 
as  they  did  not  agree  with  the  Apostolic  Church.  He 
occupies,  as  Neander  has  shown,  a  middle  position 
between  Irenseus  and  that  later  development  of  which 
Vincentius  Lirinensis  is  the  type.2  It  should  be  observed 
however,  that  in  thus  appealing  to  Catholic  tradition 
rather  than  to  Scripture  for  the  defence  of  the  faith 

1  Cf.  Irenaeus,  ii.  27.  1,  2;  28.  1.  2  See      Neaiider,       Antignosticus 

Sec  Beaven's  Trenails,  p.  138.  p.  441. 


254     CHRISTIAN  OPPONENTS  OF  GNOSTICISM.    LECT,  xv. 

against  heretics,  Tertullian  gives  no  countenance  to  any 
assertion  of  the  authority  of  a  tradition  differing  from  or 
even  opposed  to  Scripture.  The  question  turns  on  the 
origin  of  the  rule  of  faith,  not  on  the  nature  of  its  con- 
tents. It  may  be  perfectly  true,  as  Tertullian  intimates, 
that  the  rule  of  faith  was  not  originally  deduced  from 
Scripture;  nay,  it  is  certain  that  there  must  have  been  an 
oral  teaching  employed  by  the  Apostles  and  their  disciples 
before  the  canonical  books  were  written,  and  still  more 
before  they  were  known  and  received  in  all  the  churches ; 
and  such  teaching  might  be  handed  down  by  the  Church 
independently  of  Scripture,  though  agreeing  with  it.  The 
controversy  of  modern  times  on  the  respective  authority 
of  Scripture  and  tradition  turns  on  the  question,  not 
whether  there  existed  an  independent  and  pure  tradition 
in  Tertullian's  day,  but  whether  that  tradition  has  been 
preserved  uncorrupted  down  to  the  present  time.  It 
should  be  observed  also  that  though  Tertullian  thus  ap- 
peals to  the  tradition  of  the  Church  in  dealing  with 
opponents  who,  like  Marcion,  corrupted  or  rejected  the 
canonical  Scriptures,  he  constantly  himself  appeals  to  the 
Scriptures  in  his  controversies  with  those  who,  like 
Frazeas,  agreed  with  the  Church  in  accepting  them.1  The 
treatise  against  the  Yalentinians  is  chiefly  taken  from  the 
first  book  of  Irenseus,2  and  is  valuable  as  proving  the  early 
existence  of  the  Latin  translation  of  that  work  which  was 
manifestly  used  by  Tertullian.3  The  five  books  against 
Marcion  are  the  longest  and  most  important  of  Tertullian's 
anti-Gnostic  writings.  I  have  already  called  your  atten- 
tion to  some  portions  of  this  work  in  the  lecture  on  the 
heresy  against  which  it  is  directed,  and  a  short  survey  of 


1  See       Bp.      Kaye,      Tertullian          3    Massuet,    Diss.  Pr&v.   in  Iren. 
pp.  282,  283.  ii.  §  53. 

2  Rid.  p.  482. 


LECT.XV.  IRENJEUS,   TERTULLIAN.  255 

its  general  plan  and  contents  will  be  sufficient  to  complete 
the  former  incidental  notices.1  The  first  book  is  devoted 
to  a  refutation,  on  general  grounds,  of  Marcion's  distinc- 
tion between  the  Supreme  God  and  the  Creator  of  the 
world.  This  distinction  Tertullian,  like  the  author  of  the 
'  Clementines,'  regards  as  in  fact  an  assertion  of  the  exist- 
ence of  two  Gods,  and  the  greater  part  of  this  book  is 
employed  in  showing  the  absurdity  of  such  an  assertion. 
The  definition  of  God,  he  urges,  involves  the  idea  of 
Supreme  Power,  Eternal  Duration,  and  Self-existence. 
The  unity  of  the  Deity  is  the  necessary  consequence  from 
this  definition,  since  the  supposition  of  two  Supreme 
Beings  involves  a  contradiction  in  terms  (cc.  iii,  iv).  Two 
Deities  in  every  respect  equal  are  in  fact  only  one  Deity ; 
nor,  if  you  introduce  two,  can  any  satisfactory  reason  be 
assigned  why  you  may  not,  with  Valentinus,  introduce 
thirty  (c.  v).  On  the  other  hand,  if  one  of  the  Deities 
is  inferior  to  the  other,  the  superior  alone  is  God;  the 
other  is  not  properly  entitled  to  the  name  at  all  (cc.  vi, 
vii).  Continuing  this  latter  supposition,  Tertullian 
further  argues  that  it  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  during 
the  whole  time  between  the  Creation  and  the  coming  of 
Christ,  the  superior  Deity  should  have  remained  un- 
known, while  the  inferior  received  the  worship  of  man- 
kind and  manifested  his  power  and  godhead  in  the 
works  of  creation  (cc.  ix-xii).  In  answer  to  the  objec- 
tion that  the  world  is  too  imperfect  to  be  the  work  of  the 
Supreme  Being,  he  replies  that  Christ  Himself  has  allowed 
the  things  of  this  world  to  be*  employed  in  His  own 
sacraments,  that  the  Marcionites  themselves  are  compelled 
to  use  them,  for  sustenance  and  enjoyment,  and  that 

1  Cf.   Kaye's    Tertullian,   p.   452  teaching,  see  Neander,  Antignosticus 

seq.,  from  which  the  folio  wing  analysis  p.  488  seq.  (Eng.  Tr.)  ;  Baur,  Die  Chr. 

is  chiefly  abridged.    For  other  expo-  Gnosis  p.  471  seq. 
sitions  of  this  part  of  Tertullian's 


256      CHRISTIAN  OPPONENTS  OF  GNOSTICISM.    LECT.  xv. 

during  the  whole  time  that  has  elapsed  since  the  coming 
of  Christ,  the  work  of  this  supposed  hostile  power  has 
been  permitted  still  to  exist,  and  has  not  been  superseded 
by  a  new  creation  (cc.  xiii-xv).  Against  the  supposition 
that  Christ  came  to  deliver  men  from  the  power  of  the 
Demiurge,  and  to  reveal  a  new  God,  he  urges  the  long  time 
during  which  the  supposed  deliverance  was  delayed,  and 
that  this  very  revelation,  supposed  to  be  made  by  Christ, 
continued  itself  to  be  unknown  till  it  was  discovered  by 
Marcion  (cc.  xvi-xix).  He  then  proceeds  to  examine 
Marcion's  argument  for  the  antagonism  between  the  Law 
and  the  Gospel  derived  from  the  teaching  of  St.  Paul, 
and  urges  that  St.  Paul's  teaching  really  proves  the  very 
opposite  conclusion  to  that  which  Marcion  would  draw 
from  it.  The  whole  necessity  of  St.  Paul's  argument 
arises  from  the  fact  that  the  Law  and  the  Gospel  proceed 
from  the  same  Author,  and  the  Apostle  has  to  show  why 
observances  which  God  enjoined  at  one  time  were  not 
equally  required  at  another  (cc.  xx,  xxi).  He  then  ap- 
peals, as  in  the  prcescriptio,  to  the  authority  of  the  Church 
(c.  xxii),  and  finally  contends  that  Marcion's  theory  does 
not  even  prove  what  it  is  intended  to  establish — the 
benevolence  of  the  Supreme  God,  for  that  on  Marcion's 
own  showing  He  permitted  all  the  evils  which  have  taken 
place  under  the  rule  of  the  Demiurge,  if  He  did  not 
directly  produce  them ;  He  saves  the  soul  only,  not  the 
body ;  His  goodness  is  not  such  as  to  abhor  and  punish 
evil,  and  therefore  it  is  not  able  to  check  sinners  in  their 
evil  courses ;  and  does  away  with  the  necessity  of  baptism 
for  the  remission  of  sins  (cc.  xxii-xxviii).  This  leads 
some  concluding  remarks  on  the  Marcionite  practice  of 
refusing  baptism  to  married  persons,  which  he  censures 
as  incompatible  with  the  doctrine  of  the  goodness  of  God 
(c.  xxix). 


LECT.  xv.  1RENJZUS,    TERTULLIAN.  257 

In  his  second  book  Tertullian  proceeds  to  show  that 
the  appearances  of  evil  in  the  world  are  not  inconsistent 
with  the  perfect  goodness  of  its  Author.  He  dwells  on 
man's  ignorance  and  inability  to  judge  of  the  Divine 
dispensations  (c.  i).  He  appeals  to  the  proofs  of  the  Divine 
goodness  exhibited  in  the  material  world,  in  the  creation 
of  man,  and  in  the  law  given  to  Adam ;  the  superiority  of 
man  to  the  other  animals  being  shown  by  the  very  fact 
that  a  law  was  given  to  him  which  he  was  capable  of 
obeying  or  disobeying  (cc.  iii,  iv).  He  maintains  that 
the  freedom  of  man's  will  was  part  of  his  likeness  to  his 
Maker,  and  that  if  he  abused  that  freedom  and  fell,  his 
fall  does  not  detract  from  the  goodness  of  God  (cc.  v- 
x).  Having  thus  shown  that  God  is  not  the  author  of 
evil,  Tertullian  proceeds  to  maintain  that  the  punishment 
of  sin  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  goodness  of  God,  but 
belongs  to  His  justice  which  is  part  of  His  goodness,  and 
that  God  may  fitly  be  moved  with  anger  against  sin  and 
compassion  towards  suffering,  though  these  passions  are 
not  in  Him  such  as  they  are  in  man  (cc.  xi-xvii).  Ter- 
tullian then  proceeds  to  answer  the  objections  of  Marcion 
against  particular  portions  of  the  Old  Testament,  such  as 
the  Lex  Talionis,  the  sacrifices  and  ceremonies  of  the 
Mosaic  Law,  the  spoiling  of  the  Egyptians,  the  apparent 
violation  of  the  Sabbath,  the  lifting  up  of  the  brazen 
serpent,  the  repentance  ascribed  to  God,  &c.  (cc.  xviii- 
xxix) . 

The  third  book  is  directed  to  the  refutation  of 
Marcion's  opinion  that  Christ  was  not  sent  by  the  Creator 
of  the  world,  but  by  the  Supreme  God  to  counteract  the 
work  of  the  Creator.  He  says  that  Marcion's  supposed 
Supreme  God  gave  no  intimation  of  the  Christ  He  was 
hereafter  to  send,  and  that  the  miracles  which  Christ 
performed  would  not  have  sufficed  to  prove  His  Divine 

a 


258     CHRISTIAN  OPPONENTS  OF  GNOSTICISM.     LECT.  xv. 

mission  without  the  corroborative  evidence  of  prophecy. 
He  concludes  therefore,  that  Christ  must  have  been  sent 
by  the  Creator  of  the  world  who  predicted  His  coming 
through  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament  (cc.  ii,  iii). 
After  some  cautions  on  the  interpretation  of  prophecy, 
he  then  proceeds  to  show  that  both  the  Jews  and  the 
Marcionites  erred  through  not  distinguishing  between  the 
two  advents  of  Christ — the  one  in  humiliation,  the  other 
in  glory ;  and  dwells  at  some  length  on  the  absurdities  of 
the  Marcionite  doctrine  that  the  body  of  Christ  was  a 
mere  phantom  (cc.  v-xi).  The  remainder  of  the  book 
consists  principally  of  references  to  various  passages  in 
the  Old  Testament  which  prove  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah 
foretold  by  the  prophets  (cc.  xii-xxiv).1 

The  fourth  book  is  designed  as  a  refutation  of 
Marcion's  'Antitheses,'  a  work  which  professed,  by 
exhibiting  supposed  points  of  opposition  between  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments,  to  show  that  they  could  not  have 
proceeded  from  the  same  author.  Tertullian  allows  the 
different  character  and  purpose  of  the  two  dispensations, 
but  maintains  that  this  very  difference  was  foretold  by  the 
prophets,  and  is  therefore  an  argument  for,  not  against, 
the  unity  of  authorship  (c.  i).  He  then  protests  against 
Marcion's  mode  of  comparing  the  Law  and  the  Gospel  by 
means  of  a  garbled  revision  of  St.  Luke's  Gospel  alone, 
and  by  exalting  the  authority  of  St.  Paul  in  opposition  to 
the  other  Apostles.  He  maintains  that  all  the  Apostles 
and  all  the  Evangelists  must  be  alike  received,  and  that 
St.  Paul's  teaching  is  not  opposed  to  that  of  the  other 

1  Much  of  this  portion  of  the  book  beginning  of  the  ninth  chapter,  and 

is  repeated  almost  in  the  same  words  that  the  remainder  was    afterwards 

in  the  tract  Adversus  Judceos,  whence  supplied  by  a   later   hand  from  the 

Neander  (Antignosticus  p.  530)  conjee-  treatise    against    Marciou.     Cf.    Bp. 

tures  that  that  tract  as  originally  Kaye,  Tertullian  p.  xix. 
written  went   no  further    than  the 


LECT.  xv.  IRENJEU8,    TERTULLIAN.  259 

Apostles  (cc.  ii-y).  He  then  enters  on  an  examination  of 
the  special  passages  in  the  Gospels,  and  shows  from  them 
that  the  things  said  and  done  by  Christ  correspond  with 
those  foretold  of  the  Messiah  by  the  Hebrew  prophets, 
answering  also  the  various  charges  of  contradiction 
between  the  two  Testaments  which  had  been  alleged  by 
Marcion  (cc.  vi-xliii). 

In  the  fifth  book  Tertullian  pursues,  with  reference  to  St. 
Paul's  Epistles,  the  same  argument  which  in  the  previous 
book  he  had  applied  to  the  Gospels.  Marcion  professed  an 
exceptional  respect  for  St.  Paul,  as  the  only  preacher  of 
true  Christianity ;  and  the  object  of  Tertullian  is  to  prove 
that  the  writings  of  this  Apostle,  far  from  being  at 
variance,  are  in  perfect  unison  with  the  teaching  of  the  Old 
Testament  (c.  i).  He  proceeds  to  examine  in  succession 
the  ten  Epistles  whose  authority  was  acknowledged  by  Mar- 
cion :  first,  the  Galatians  (cc.  ii-iv) ;  then  the  two  Epistles 
to  the  Corinthians  (cc.  v-xii)  ;  then  that  to  the  Romans, 
which  he  states  to  have  been  grievously  mutilated  by  the 
Marcionites  (cc.  xiii,  xiv) ;  then  the  two  to  the  Thessa- 
lonians  (cc.  xv,  xvi) ;  then  the  Ephesians,  Colossians,  and 
Philippians  (cc.  xvii-xx) ;  and  ends  with  a  remark  on  the 
Epistle  to  Philemon,  which  he  says  had  alone,  on  account 
of  its  brevity,  escaped  corruption  at  the  hands  of  Marcion. 
The  Epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus  are  omitted  because 
Marcion  refused  to  acknowledge  them,  affecting,  as  Ter- 
tullian says,  to  falsify  the  number  of  the  Epistles,  as  well 
as  their  contents  (c.  xxi). 

Of  the  two  theologians  whose  writings  we  have 
hitherto  examined,  Irenaeus  represents  for  the  most  part 
the  calmness  and  moderation  of  the  judge;  Tertullian,  the 
vehemence  and  to  some  extent  the  one-sidedness  of  the 
advocate.  Both,  though  occasionally  dealing  with  philo- 
sophical arguments,  are,  in  the  general  tone  of  their 

8  2 


260      CHRISTIAN  OPPONENTS  OF  GNOSTICISM.    LECT.  xv. 

minds,  theologians  ratlier  than  philosophers,  and,  while 
zealous  in  defending  the  revealed  truth,  hardly  appreciate 
the  philosophical  positions  occupied  by  their  adversaries 
who  corrupted  it.  In  our  next  lecture  we  shall  endeavour 
to  show  how  this  point  of  view  was  taken  up  and  contro- 
verted by  the  writer  who  is  especially  the  Christian 
philosopher  of  this  period,  Clement  of  Alexandria. 


LECT.  xvi.    CLEMENT  OF  ALEXANDRIA,  HIPPOLYTUS.   261 


LECTURE   XVI. 

y 

CLEMENT   OF   ALEXANDRIA — HIPPOLYTUS. 

ALEXANDRIA,  the  great  centre  of  intellectual  and  practical 
activity  under  the  Roman  empire,  the  confluence  where 
the  thought  of  Egypt,  Asia,  Palestine,  and  Greece  came 
together,  possessed  a  Christian  catechetical  school  for  the 
instruction  of  converts  in  the  faith,  which  is  said  to  have 
existed  from  the  time  of  St.  Mark.1  About  the  middle  of 
the  second  century  it  assumed  a  different  character,  and 
from  a  school  for  catechumens  became  a  seminary  for 
training  the  clergy  and  for  completing  the  instruction  of 
the  most  highly  educated  converts.2  The  mastership  was 
held  by  a  succession  of  eminent  men,  among  whom  the 
first  that  can  be  named  with  certainty  was  Pantsenus,  a 
convert  from  the  Stoic  philosophy.3  Pantsenus  was  suc- 
ceeded by  his  disciple  Clement,  usually  called,  from  the 
place  of  his  residence,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  though  he 
was  probably  a  native  of  Athens.4  Clement  was  originally 
a  heathen,  and  it  is  uncertain  at  what  period  of  his  life  he 
was  converted  to  Christianity ; 5  but  from  the  compara- 
tively favourable  estimate  which,  in  common  with  his 

1  Hieron.   De    Viris  Elustr.    36.  speaks  of  him  as  converted  to  Christi- 
Cf.  Kobertson,  History  of  the  Christian  anity   at   a  mature   age,    though   he 
Church  vol.  I.  p.  87.  supposes  his  conversion  to  be  earlier 

2  Eobertson,  I.  c.  than  his  intercourse  with  Pantsenus. 

3  Euseb.  H.  E.  v.  10.  The  latter  supposition  is  doubted  by 

4  Epiphan.  Hair,    xxxii.   G.      Cf.  Davidson,  Art.  '  Clement,'  in  Smith's 
Bp.  Kaye,  Clem.  Alex.  p.  8.  Diet,  of  Biography. 

5  Neandcr  (Ch.  Hist.  II.  p.  453) 


262  CLEMENT  OF  ALEXANDRIA,  LECT.  xvi. 

predecessor  Justin  Martyr,1  lie  forms  of  the  Greek  philo- 
sophy, differing  in  this  respect  from  the  majority  of  the 
Christians  of  his  day,  it  is  probable  that,  like  Justin,  he 
had  studied  philosophy,  and  learned  to  estimate  its  value, 
before  his  acquaintance  with  the  higher  truths  of  Christi- 
anity.2 While  Irenseus  looks  upon  philosophy  chiefly  as 
the  source  of  the  errors  of  Gnosticism,  while  Tertullian 
regards  it  as  a  corruption  proceeding  from  Satan  and 
altogether  devoid  of  truth,3  Clement  sees  in  it  a  gift  of 
God,  imperfect  indeed  and  corrupted  by  human  devices, 
but  designed  by  God  for  the  training  of  the  Gentile  world, 
as  an  education  preparing  the  Gentiles  for  the  coming  of 
Christ,  as  the  law  was  to  the  Jews.4 

The  three  principal  extant  works  of  Clement — the 
6  Cohortatio  ad  Grsecos,'  the  '  Psedagogus,'  and  the  '  Stro- 
mateis '  or  '  Miscellanies ' — may  be  regarded  as  forming  a 
connected  series,  since  his  starting  point  is  the  idea  that 
the  Divine  Teacher  of  mankind,  the  Logos,  first  conducts 
the  rude  heathen  sunk  in  sin  and  idolatry  to  the  faith ; 
then  still  further  reforms  their  lives  by  moral  precepts ; 
and  finally  elevates  those  who  have  undergone  this  moral 
purification  to  that  profounder  knowledge  of  Divine  things 
which  he  calls  Gnosis.  Thus  the  Logos  appears  first  as  ex- 
horting sinners  to  repentance,  and  converting  the  heathen 
to  the  faith  (irpoTpeirTucosi) ;  then  as  forming  the  life  and 
conduct  of  the  converted  by  his  discipline  (TraiSaywyos)  ; 
and,  finally,  as  a  teacher  of  the  true  knowledge  to  those 
who  are  purified.5  The  work  with  which  we  are  princi- 

1  In  his  Apologies,  not  in  the  (pro-  andrian  tradition  handed  down  from 
bably  spurious)  Cohortatio.  Cf.  Nean-  Aristobulus,  which  maintained  that  the 
der,  Ck.  Hist.  II.  p.  418.  Greek  philosophy  was  in  great   part 

2  Cf.  Euseb.  Prop.  Evang.  ii.  2 ;  stolen    from    the    Jewish    Scripture, 
Neander,  Ch.  Hist.  II.  454.  though  he  allows  that  some  parts  may 

3  Neander,  Ch.  Hist.  II.  p.  236.  have  been  directly  given  by  God  :  see 

4  Strom,  i.  5,  p.  331 ;  vi.  8,  p.  771.  Strom,  i.  17,  p.  366.   Cf.  Kaye,  p.  122. 
Cf.  Bp.  Kaye,  Clem.  Alex.  pp.  1 16, 191.  5  Strom,  iv.  1,  2. 

Clement  however  followed  the  Alex- 


LECT.  xvi.  HIPPOL  YT  US.  263 


pally  concerned  is  the  ^Tpco/jidTeis,  a  title  which  perhaps 
may  be  fairly  rendered  '  Miscellanies,'  the  word.<rrpft>- 
fAcnsvs  in   its   literal  signification  meaning  a   patchwork 
quilt  of  various  colours.     The  title  is  not  inappropriate  to 
the  character  of  the  work,  which  is,  as  he  himself  describes 
it,1  a  miscellaneous  collection  passing  from  one  subject 
to  another,  to  suit  the  tastes  of  discursive  readers  ;  the 
main  design  however  being  to  bring  together  a  chaotic 
assemblage  of  truth  and  error  out  of  the  Greek  philo- 
sophers and  the  systems  of  the  Gnostic  sects,  in  connection 
and  contrast  with  portions  of  the  true  Gnosis.     Availing 
himself  of  the  distinction,  to  which  I  have  ad  verted,  in  a 
former  lecture  as  recognised  in  the  writings  of  St.  Paul, 
between  the  knowledge  with  which  the  followers  of  Christ 
are  enriched  by  Him,2  and  the  knowledge  falsely  so  called  3 
which  the  Christian  teacher  is  bidden  to  avoid,  Clement 
endeavours  to  wrest  from  his  adversaries  the  title  on  which 
they  prided  themselves,  and  to  turn  whatever  attractions 
it  possessed  to  the  service  of  the  Church  by  claiming  the 
title   of  Gnostic   as   properly  belonging    to   the   perfect 
Christian,  and  sketching  a  portrait  of  the  true  Gnostic  as 
contrasted  with  the  false.     What  he  has  actually  pro- 
duced however  is  c  not  so  much  a  portraiture  of  the  perfect 
Christian  as  a  representation  of  different  portions  of  the 
Gnostic  character  thrown  upon  the  canvas  without  order 
or  connection.'  4    His  design  seems  to  have  been  to  form  an 
ideal  sketch  of  Christian  excellence  in  its  highest  conceiv- 
able perfection;  to   describe   the  model  Christian  as  he 
ought  to  be,  after  the  manner  of  the  perfectly  good  man 
of  Aristotle's  Ethics  or  the  imaginary  wise  man  of  the 
Stoic  philosophy,  Christian  graces  and  Divine  illumination 
being  substituted  for  the  sovereign  reason  of  the  heathen 

1  Of.  Neander,  1.  c.  p.  455.  3  1  Tim.  vi.  20. 

2  1  Cor.  i.  5.  4  Bp.  Kaye,  Clem.  Alex.  p.  260. 


264  CLEMENT  OF  ALEXANDRIA,  LECT.  xvi. 

philosophers.  Like  Aristotle,  Clement  placed  the  highest 
state  of  the  Gnostic  soul  in  contemplation.1  Like  the 
Stoics,  he  regarded  the  perfection  of  the  human  character 
as  consisting  in  apathy  or  exemption  from  passion.2  To 
both  he  added  a  Christian  consummation,  the  contempla- 
tion being  an  intercourse  with  God  to  be  completely 
realised  in  a  future  life ;  the  apathy  being  a  perfect  sub- 
jection to  the  law  of  God,  extinguishing  all  struggle 
between  the  flesh  and  the  spirit.  Clement's  anxiety  to 
place  Christianity  in  such  a  light  as  might  conciliate  the 
favour  of  the  learned  heathen  caused  him  to  assimilate 
the  model  of  Christian  as  much  as  possible  to  that  of 
philosophical  perfection;3  and  like  the  heathen  philo- 
sophies he  has  constructed  an  imaginary  man  framed  on 
an  a  priori  hypothesis,  rather  than  a  type  actually  realis- 
able in  human  nature.  The  antagonism  of  Clement  to 
the  false  Gnosticism — that  is  to  say,  to  the  Gnosticism 
commonly  so  called — principally  relates  to  two  points  in 
their  teaching.  1.  Their  denial  of  the  free  will  of  man, 
and  consequent  perversion  of  the  moral  relation  of  man  to 
God.  2.  Their  condemnation  of  the  material  creation, 
and  consequent  hostility  to  marriage  as  a  means  whereby 
material  existence  is  multiplied.4 

I  have  before  observed  that  the  Gnostic  philosophy  in 
general  entirely  lost  sight  of  the  proper  conception  of  sin 
as  a  voluntary  transgression  by  man  of  the  law  of  God, 
and  merged  it  in  the  general  notion  of  evil  inherent  in 
the  constitution  of  the  universe,  to  be  traced,  not  to  the 
fall  of  man,  but  to  the  creation  of  the  world  and  the 
original  nature  of  things.  Moral  evil  in  human  actions 

1  Strom,  vii.  10,  p.  865  (Potter).  883,  886.  Cf.  Kaye,  p.  251. 
Cf.  ii.  17,  p.  469  ;  v.  14,  p.  732.     See  *  Kaye,  p.  261. 

Bp.  Kaye,  Clem.  Alex.  p.  254.  4  Baur,      Die      Christ.      Gnosis, 

"  ~  Strom,  ii.  p.  484 ;  iv.  p.    581 ;  p.  489. 
vi.  9,  14,  p.  775,  776,  797  ;  vii.  14,  p. 


LECT.  xvi.  HIPPOLYTUS.  265 

being  thus  identified  with  natural  evil  in  the  system  of 
the  world,  it  was  perfectly  consistent  to  regard  the  cha- 
racters of  men,  and  consequently  their  moral  relations 
to  God,  as  determined  by  the  cosmical  conditions  under 
which  each  man  came  into  existence,  not  as  in  any  way 
connected  with  his  own  choice  or  free  will.  The  Gnostics, 
at  least  the  better  portion  of  them,  recognised  indeed  the 
distinction  between  good  and  evil  men  ;  nay,  they  prided 
themselves  especially  on  the  superiority  of  the  Gnostic  or 
spiritual  man  over  the  inferior  degrees  of  men,  psychical 
or  material ;  but  the  pre-eminence  was  wholly  a  natural 
gift,  bestowed  upon  some  men  and  denied  to  others  by 
inevitable  necessity,  without  any  choice  on  their  part.1 
Against  this  doctrine  of  natural  necessity,  as  held  by 
Basilides  and  Valentinus,  Clement  asserts  in  the  strongest 
terms  the  responsibility  and  free  will  of  man.  f  The 
followers  of  Basilides,'  he  says,  '  suppose  that  faith  is  a 
natural  gift  assigned  to  the  elect,  which  discovers  know- 
ledge without  demonstration  by  intellectual  apprehension. 
The  disciples  of  Valentinus,  on  the  other  hand,  ascribe 
faith  to  us  simple  persons ;  but  for  themselves,  who,  by 
the  superior  excellence  of  their  formation,  are  naturally 
destined  to  be  saved,  they  claim  knowledge,  which  they 
say  is  yet  more  removed  from  faith  than  is  the  spiritual 
from  the  psychical.  The  followers  of  Basilides  moreover 
maintain  that  faith  and  election  together  are  appropriated 
to  each  person  according  to  his  grade,2  and  that,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  supermundane  election,  the  mundane  faith 
of  every  nature  is  determined,  and  that  correspondent  to 
the  hope  of  each3  is  also  his  gift  of  faith.  Faith  then 
is  no  longer  a  voluntary  right  action,  if  it  is  a  natural 

1  See  above,  Lecture  XII  on  the  Die  Ckr.  Gnosis  p.  489. 
Valentinians.  3  Kard\X^\ov  rfj    e'ATriSt,    i.e.    ap- 

2  Ka0'    enaffTov    Sidffr-nna,    '  nach  parently  according  to  the  destiny,  or 
jeder  Stufe  der  Geisterwelt,'  Baur,  expectation  allotted  to  each  person. 


266  CLEMENT  OF  ALEXANDRIA,  LECT.  xvi. 

privilege  ;  nor  can  lie  who  does  not  believe  be  rightly 
punished  for  that  which  is  not  his  own  fault  ;  as  also  he 
who  believes  is  not  the  cause  of  his  own  belief.  Nay,  the 
whole  peculiarity  and  distinctive  character  of  belief  and 
unbelief,  if  we  consider  rightly,  will  not  be  amenable  to 
praise  or  blame,  being  predetermined  by  a  natural  neces- 
sity ordained  by  Almighty  power;  and  in  us,  if  we  are 
mere  lifeless  machines,  pulled  by  our  desires  as  with 
strings,  volition  or  compulsion  and  the  impulse  which 
precedes  these  are  mere  superfluities.'  'I  cannot,'  he 
continues,  '  conceive  a  living  being  whose  active  prin- 
ciple is  moved  necessarily  by  an  external  cause.  How, 
upon  this  supposition,  can  he  who  believes  not  repent  and 
receive  remission  of  sins?  Baptism  is  thus  no  longer 
reasonable,  nor  the  blessed  seal  (of  confirmation1),  nor  the 
Son,  nor  the  Father  ;  but  their  God  becomes  nothing  more 
than  a  natural  distribution  of  things,  not  having  that 
which  is  the  basis  of  salvation,  voluntary  faith.'2  In  a 
later  passage  he  combats  the  doctrine  of  natural  destina- 
tion to  immortality,  together  with  the  Valentinian  dis- 
tinction between  the  Supreme  God  and  the  Demiurge,  the 
one  being  the  author  of  the  spiritual,  the  other  of  the 
psychical  portion  of  mankind  ;  and  shows  how  this  theory 
limits  the  saving  work  of  Christ  and  perverts  the  true 
nature  of  the  redemption.3  And  again  in  another  passage 
he  maintains  that  if  men  arrive  at  the  knowledge  of  God 
by  nature,  as  Basilides  maintains,  faith  is  not  a  reasonable 
assent  of  a  free  soul,  but  a  beauty  conferred  by  immediate 
creation  ;  and  that  for  such  persons,  being,  as  Valentinus 
says,  saved  by  nature,  the  commandments  are  superfluous, 
and  even  the  redemption  by  Christ  not  needed.4  In 


This  term  2  Strom,  ii.  3,  p.  433  scq. 

sometimes  means  baptism,  sometimes  3  Ibid.  iv.  13,  p.  603. 

confirmation.    Here  the  context  seems  4  Ibid.  v.  1,  p.  645. 
to  indicate  the  latter. 


LECT.  xvi.  HIPPOLYTUS.  267 

another  place  Clement  maintains  that  the  merit  of  the 
martyr  depends  upon  the  fact  that  he  suffers  voluntarily, 
for  the  sake  of  the  faith,  torments  which  he  might  have 
avoided  by  apostasy ;  and  combats  a  strange  theory  of 
Basilides,  that  these  sufferings  are  incurred  on  account  of 
sins  committed  in  a  former  life — a  theory  which  Clement 
censures  as  subversive  of  the  justice  of  God,  and  dis- 
honouring to  the  faith  of  the  martyr.1  In  another  place 
he  combats  the  pantheistic  tendency  of  the  Gnostic  theory, 
and  points  out  its  monstrous  consequences  in  those  re- 
markable words,  c  God  has  no  natural  relation  to  us,  as 
the  founders  of  the  heresies  assert,  whether  He  formed  us 
out  of  nothing  or  out  of  matter,  since  the  former  has  no 
existence,  and  the  latter  is  in  every  respect  different  from 
God ;  unless  some  one  should  venture  to  assert  that  we 
are  part  of  God,  and  of  the  same  essence  with  Him  ;  and 
I  understand  not  how  he  who  knows  God  can  bear  to  hear 
such  an  assertion,  when  he  contemplates  our  life  and  the 
evils  in  which  we  are  involved.  Were  this  the  case  God 
would  in  part  sin,  if  the  parts  of  the  whole  go  to  complete 
the  whole ;  but  if  they  do  not  go  towards  its  completion, 
they  are  not  parts.  But  God,  being  by  His  nature  rich  in 
pity,  in  His  goodness  watches  over  us,  who  are  neither 
part  of  Him  nor  His  children  by  nature.  .  .  .  The  riches 
of  God's  mercy  are  manifested  in  this :  that  He  calls  to 
the  adoption  of  sons  those  who  belong  not  to  Him  in 
essence  or  nature,  but  simply  in  being  the  work  of  His 
will.'2 

On  the  second  feature  of  the  Gnostic  heresies  to  which 
Clement  opposes  himself,  their  contempt  and  dislike  of 
the  material  creation,  and  especially  of  the  human  body, 
he  expresses  himself  in  general  terms  in  a  beautiful 

1  Strom,  iv.  12,  p.  599.  Bp.   Kaye,  Clem.  Alex.  p.  142.     Of. 

2  Ibid,  ii,  16,  p.  467,  translated  by      Baur,  Die  Chr.  Gnosis  p.  492. 


268  CLEMENT  OF  ALEXANDRIA,  LECT.  xvi. 

passage  towards  the  end  of  the  fourth  book.  '  Those,5 
he  says,  'who  censure  the  creation  and  speak  evil  of  the 
body,  speak  -without  reason,  for  they  do  not  consider  that 
the  structure  of  man  is  erect,  and  fitted  for  the  contem- 
plation of  heaven,  and  that  the  organs  of  sensation  contri- 
bute to  the  acquisition  of  knowledge,  and  that  the  members 
are  formed  for  that  which  is  good,  not  for  pleasure.  Hence 
the  body  becomes  the  habitation  of  the  soul,  which  is  most 
precious  to  God,  and  is  thought  worthy  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
by  the  sanctification  of  the  soul  and  body,  being  perfected 
by  the  perfection  of  the  Saviour.'  .  .  .  .  '  We  admit,'  he 
continues,  c  that  the  soul  is  the  better  part  of  man,  the 
body  the  worse ;  but  neither  is  the  soul  good  by  nature, 
nor  the  body  bad  by  nature,  nor  is  that  which  is  not  good 
necessarily  bad ;  there  are  things  between  the  two,  and 
of  these  some  preferred,  some  rejected.1  As  man  was 
to  be  placed  among  sensible  objects,  he  was  necessarily 
composed  of  different,  but  not  opposite  parts,  a  soul  and  a 
body.  .  .  .  Basilides  speaks  of  the  election  as  strangers  to 
the  world,  being  naturally  above  the  world.  But  this  is 
not  so,  for  all  things  are  of  one  God ;  and  no  one  can  by 
nature  be  a  stranger  to  the  world,  there  being  but  one 
essence  and  one  God;  but  the  elect  live  as  strangers, 
knowing  that  all  things  are  to  be  possessed,  and  then  laid 
aside.  They  use  the  three  good  things  of  which  the 
Peripatetics  speak;2  but  they  use  the  body  as  men  who 
are  taking  a  long  journey  use  the  inns  on  the  road — 
minding  the  things  of  the  world  as  of  the  place  in  which 
they  sojourn,  but  leaving  their  habitations  and  possessions 
and  the  use  of  them  without  regret;  readily  following 
Him  who  withdraws  them  from  life,  never  looking  behind, 

1  /col  7rpoTj7/ieVo  KOL  diroiTpoi]'y/j.€va.  rejecta  dieere  licebit.' 
Cf.  Cicero,  De  Fin.  iii.  4.  15,  'proeg-  2  i.  e.  goods  of  the  soul,  goods  of 

menis   et  apoproegmenis  .  .  .  quam-  the  body,    and  goods   external.     Cf. 

quam  hsec  quidem  prseposita  rjscte  et  Aristotle,  Eth.  Me.  i.  8. 


LECT.  xvi.  HIPPOLYTUS.  269 

giving  thanks  for  the  time  of  their  sojourning,  but  bless- 
ing their  departure,  and  longing  for  their  mansion  in 
heaven.  .  .  .  The  heretical  notion  that  the  soul  is  sent 
down  from  heaven  into  these  lower  regions  is  erroneous. 
God  ameliorates  all  things ;  and  the  soul,  choosing  the 
best  course  of  life  from  God  and  righteousness,  receives 
heaven  in  exchange  for  earth.' 1 

The  Gnostic  hostility  to  matter  and  the  material  body 
assumed  in  some  of  these  schools,  though  not  in  all,  a 
practical  direction  in  relation  to  marriage ;  and  to  this 
question  Clement  gives  a  special  examination,  often 
giving,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  second  book,  his  own 
views  on  the  subject  of  marriage,  which,  he  says,  is 
ordained  by  God  and  counselled  in  Scripture,  though  not 
to  be  entered  into  rashly,  nor  by  every  one,  but  with  due 
regard  to  time  and  person  and  age  and  circumstances ; 
and  after  mentioning  the  opinions  of  some  of  the  ancient 
philosophers  on  this  subject,  Clement  proceeds  in  the- 
third  book  to  examine  the  views  of  the  different  schools 
of  Gnosticism.  The  Valentinians,  he  says,  approve  of 
marriage;  the  followers  of  Basilides,  though  preferring 
celibacy,  allow  marriage  in  certain  cases,  while  some  of 
this  sect  have  perverted  the  teaching  of  their  founders  to 
licentious  conclusions ;  the  disciples  of  Carpocrates  and 
Epiphanes  profess  communism  after  the  manner  of  brutes, 
and  practise  open  and  shameless  licentiousness;  the 
followers  of  Marcion  condemn  marriage  out  of  hostility 
to  the  Creator  and  unwillingness  to  add  to  His  kingdom.2 
Clement  then  proceeds  to  divide  the  heretics  into  two 
classes — those  who  taught  the  indifference  of  human 
actions,  and  .those  who  inculcate  an  overstrained  con- 
tinence through  impiety  and  enmity  to  the  Creator, 

1  Strom,  ii.  26,  p.  638.     See  Bp.       Die  Chr.  Gnosis  p.  493  seq. 
Kaye,  Clem.  Alex.  p.  172.     Cf.  Baur,  "  Ibid.  iii.  1-3,  p.  508  scq. 


270  CLEMENT  OF  ALEXANDRIA,  LECT.  xvi. 

and  argues  at  considerable  length  against  both,  on 
grounds  drawn  partly  from  natural  reason  and  partly 
from  Scripture.  '  We  are  at  liberty,'  he  says,  c  to  marry 
or  to  abstain  from  marriage ;  a  life  of  celibacy  is  not  of 
itself  better  than  a  married  life.  They  who,  iu  order  to 
avoid  the  distraction  of  a  married  life,  have  remained 
single,  have  frequently  become  misanthropic,  and  have 
failed  in  charity ;  while  others,  who  have  married,  have 
given  themselves  up  to  pleasure,  and  have  become  like 
unto  beasts.' l  His  concluding  advice  011  the  subject  is 
in  the  same  moderate  tone.  c  They,'  he  says,  '  who  incul- 
cate continence  out  of  enmity  to  the  Creator,  act  im- 
piously, when  they  might  choose  celibacy  agreeably  to 
the  second  rule  of  piety ;  giving  thanks  for  the  grace 
imparted  to  them,  but  not  abhorring  the  creature  or 
despising  those  who  marry,  for  the  world  is  the  work  of  a 
Creator,  as  well  as  celibacy  itself;  but  let  both  (the  married 
and  single)  give  thanks  for  the  state  in  which  they  are  placed, 
if  they  know  for  what  purpose  they  are  placed  in  it.' 2 

Clement's  direct  refutation  of  particular  portions  of 
the  Gnostic  teaching,  as  exhibited  in  the  above  extracts, 
is  mainly  directed  to  moral  and  practical  questions.  The 
general  principles  of  the  Gnostic  theories  he  does  not 
attack  directly,  but  refutes  them  indirectly  by  his  counter- 
sketch  of  the  true  Gnostic,  or  perfect  Christian.  The 
true  Gnostic  is  he  '  who  unites  in  himself  all  Christian 
perfections,  intellectual  and  practical,  who  combines 
knowledge,  faith,  and  love,  and  therefore  is  one  in  his 
judgment,  truly  spiritual,  formed  into  a  perfect  man,  after 
the  image  of  the  Lord  by  the  Artificer  Himself,  worthy  to 
be  called  brother  by  the  Lord,  at  once  a  friend  and  son  of 
God.'  3  He  is  distinguished  from  the  common  believer  in 

1  Strom,  iii.  9,  p.  541.     Cf.  Kaye,       p.  156. 

p.  153.  3  Ibid,  iii,  10,  p.  542.      Cf.  Kaye, 

2  Ibid.  iii.  18,  p.  560.     Cf.  Kaye,      p.  242. 


LECT.  xvi.  H1PPOLYTUS.  271 

that  he  acts  from  love,  not  from  fear  of  punishment  or 
hope  of  reward.1  He  has  faith  in  common  -with  all 
believers,  but  his  faith  is  made  perfect  by  knowledge. 
His  knowledge  however,  on  the  other  hand,  is  founded 
upon  faith ;  he  must  proceed  from  faith  and  grow  up  in 
faith,  in  order  that  through  the  grace  of  God  he  may 
receive  knowledge  concerning  Him  as  far  as  it  is  possible.2 
c  Faith  is  a  compendious  knowledge  of  things  which  are  of 
urgent  necessity ;  knowledge,  a  firm  and  valid  demonstra- 
tion of  things  received  through  faith,  built  upon  faith 
through  the  instruction  of  the  Lord,  and  conducting  us  on 
to  an  infallible  apprehension.  The  first  saving  change  is 
from  heathenism  to  faith ;  the  second  from  faith  to  know- 
ledge, which,  being  perfected  in  love,  renders  that  which 
knows  the  friend  of  that  which  is  known.3  The  believer 
merely  tastes  the  Scriptures;  the  Gnostic,  proceeding 
further,  is  an  accurate  judge  (yvtofjuov)  of  the  truth,  as  in 
matters  of  ordinary  life  the  artificer  is  superior  to  the 
common  man,  and  can  express  something  better  than  the 
common  notions.' 4 

Yet,  however  highly  Clement  may  rate  the  knowledge 
which  he  attributes  to  his  true  Gnostic,  several  features 
are  worthy  of  notice  by  which  it  is  distinguished  from  that 
knowledge  claimed  for  themselves  by  the  Gnostic  heretics. 
First,  it  is  not  a  special  gift  of  nature,  but  a  habit  pain- 
fully acquired  by  preparation  and  discipline.  Secondly, 
it  is  not  a  mere  apprehension  of  speculative  theories,  but 
a  practical  principle,  embracing  action  and  love.  Thirdly, 
it  is  founded  on  faith ;  the  matter  and  substance  of  its 
doctrine  is  that  which  is  revealed  through  Christ;  its 
pre-eminence  consists  in  the  manner  and  certainty  of  its 

1  Strom,  iv.  18,  22,  pp.  614,  625.  3  Ibid.  vii.  10,  p.  865.     Cf.  Kaye, 
Cf.  Kaye,  p.  244.  pp.  245-6. 

2  Ibid.  vii.  10,  p.  864.     Cf.  Kaye,  4  Ibid.  vii.  16,  p.  891.    Cf.  Kaye, 
p.  245.  p.  246. 


272  CLEMENT  OF  ALEXANDRIA,  LECT.  xvi. 

apprehension,  not  in  any  new  and  distinct  teaching. 
Fourthly,  it  is  a  knowledge  imparted  as  far  as  is  possible,1 
possessed  in  this  life  according  to  man's  capacity  to 
receive  it;  and  the  limits  of  that  capacity  Clement  has 
pointed  out  in  several  remarkable  passages.  In  one 
place  he  says,  f  The  Divine  nature  cannot  be  described  as 
it  really  is.  The  prophets  have  spoken  to  us,  fettered  as 
we  are  by  the  flesh,  according  to  our  ability  to  receive 
their  saying,  the  Lord  accommodating  Himself  to  human 
weakness  for  our  salvation.' 2  In  another  he  says,  c  It  is 
manifest  that  no  one  during  the  time  of  this  life  can  have 
a  clear  apprehension  of  God.  The  pure  in  heart  shall  see 
God  when  they  shall  have  arrived  at  the  last  perfection.' 3 
In  another,  describing  the  purification  of  the  true  Gnostic 
by  the  elevation  of  the  soul  above  the  objects  of  sense,  he 
says,  f  If,  then,  rejecting  whatever  belongs  to  bodies  and 
to  things  called  incorporeal,  we  cast  ourselves  into  the 
greatness  of  Christ,  and  go  forward  with  holiness  into 
immensity,  we  shall  approach  to  the  notion  of  the 
Almighty,  knowing  not  what  He  is,  but  what  He  is  not.' 4 
And  in  a  fourth  passage  he  expressly  declares,  c  The  first 
principle  of  all  things  cannot  be  named ;  and  if  we  give  it 
a  name  not  properly  (ov  Kvpt&s)9  calling  it  either  One,  or 
the  Good,  or  Intellect,  or  the  Very  Existent,  or  Father,  or 
God,  or  Maker,  or  Lord,  we  speak  not  as  declaring  its 
name,  but  by  reason  of  our  deficiency  we  employ  good 
names,  in  order  that  the  reason  may  be  able  to  rest  upon 
these,  not  wandering  around  others.  For  these  names  are 
not  severally  indicative  of  God,  but  all  collectively  exhibit 
the  power  of  the  Almighty ;  for  the  names  of  things  are 
given  to  them  either  from  the  properties  belonging  to 

1  Strom,  vii.  10,  p.  864,  xapni  rod       p.  141. 

06ou  TT/y  irepl  avrov  KO/J-iffaffQai,  &s  ol6v  8  Ibid.  v.  1,  p.  647. 

76  fort*,  yvuffiv.     Cf.  Kaye,  p.  245.  «  Ibid.  v.  11,  p.  689.      Cf.  Kaye, 

2  Ibid.  ii.  16,  p.  467.     Cf.  Kaye,      p.  184. 


LECT.  xvi.  HIPPOLYTUS.  273 

them,  or  from  their  relation  to  each  other ;  but  none  of 
these  can  be  received  concerning  God.' l 

It  may  be  interesting  to  compare  these  admissions  of 
the  philosophical  Clement  with  the  cognate  language  of 
the  other  Catholic  opponent  of  the  Gnosticism  of  the 
period.  Irenseus  says  of  the  Gnostic  attempts  to  explain 
the  origin  of  the  universe,  and  to  solve  problems  which 
the  Scriptures  have  left  unexplained,  '  If  we  cannot  dis- 
cover explanations  of  all  those  things  which  are  sought 
for  in  the  Scriptures,  let  us  not  therefore  seek  after  any 
other  God  besides  Him  who  is  truly  God ;  for  this  is  the 
greatest  impiety.  We  ought  to  leave  such  things  to  God 
who  made  us,  being  fully  assured  that  the  Scriptures  are 
perfect,  being  spoken  by  the  Word  of  God  and  His  Spirit ; 
but  we  in  proportion  as  we  are  inferior  to,  and  the  latest 
creation  of  the  Word  of  God  and  His  Spirit,  in  that  pro- 
portion are  destitute  of  the  knowledge  of  His  mysteries. 
And  there  is  no  cause  to  wonder  if  we  are  thus  circum- 
stanced with  regard  to  spiritual  and  heavenly  things,  and 
those  which  require  to  be  made  known  by  revelation, 
since  even  of  those  things  that  are  before  our  feet  (I 
mean  the  things  in  this  created  world,  which  are  handled 
and  seen  by  us  and  are  present  to  us)  there  are  many 
which  have  escaped  our  knowledge ;  and  these,  too,  we 
commit  to  God.' 2  .  .  .  '  If  any  one,'  he  continues,  '  should 
ask,  "  What  was  God  doing  before  He  made  the  world  ?  " 
we  reply  that  the  answer  to  this  question  rests  with  God. 
That  this  world  was  made  perfect  by  God,  and  had  a 
beginning  in  time,  the  Scriptures  tell  us ;  but  no  Scrip- 
ture reveals  what  God  was  doing  before  this.  The  answer 
therefore  rests  with  God,  and  it  is  not  [fitting]  that  we 
should  wish  to  discover  foolish  and  rash  and  blasphemous 

1  Strom,  v.    12.      Cf.    Uberweg,  2  Irenseus,  ii.  28.  2. 

Gesch.  der  Philosophie,  II.  p.  61. 


274  CLEMENT  OF  ALEXANDRIA.  LECT.  XTI. 

inventions,  and,  by  imagining  that  we  have  discovered  the 
origin  of  matter,  to  set  aside  God  Himself  who  made  all 
things.' J  A  little  later  he  applies  the  same  rule  to  curious 
inquiries  concerning  the  mysteries  of  the  Divine  nature : 
c  If  any  one  should  say  to  us,  "  How  was  the  Son  begotten 
of  the  Father?"  we  reply  that  that  production,  or  gene- 
ration, or  nomination,  or  revelation,  or  by  whatever  name 
we  may  call  that  unspeakable  generation,  no  one  knows, 
not  Yalentinus,  nor  Marcion,  nor  Saturninus,  nor  Basi- 
lides,  nor  Angels,  nor  Archangels,  nor  Principalities,  nor 
Powers,  but  only  the  Father  who  begat,  and  the  Son  who 
is  begotten.' 2  And  in  more  general  terms  he  concludes  : 
6  Although  the  spirit  of  the  Saviour  that  is  in  Him 
searcheth  all  things,  even  the  deep  things  of  God,  yet,  as 
to  us,  there  are  diversities  of  gifts,  diversities  of  ministra- 
tions, and  diversities  of  operations,  and  we  on  the  earth, 
as  Paul  says,  know  in  part  and  prophesy  in  part.  .  .  . 
But  when  we  seek  things  which  are  above  us,  and  which 
we  are  not  able  to  attain,  [it  is  absurd]  that  we  should 
aspire  to  such  a  height  of  presumption  as  to  lay  open 
God  and  things  which  are  not  yet  discovered,  as  if  by  one 
man's  talk  about  emanations  we  had  found  out  God,  the 
Maker  of  all  things.' 3  I  have  quoted  in  a  previous  lecture 
the  strong  language  in  which  Tertullian,  in  his  work 
against  Marcion,  dwells  on  the  unsearchableness  of  God 
and  the  ignorance  of  man  ;  and  the  consensus  of  the  three 
writers  is  the  more  remarkable  when  we  consider  the  dif- 
ference in  their  natural  dispositions  and  in  their  modes  of 
conducting  their  respective  controversies.  These  writers 
represent  the  first  direct  collision  between  a  metaphysical 
philosophy  of  the  Absolute  with  its  inevitable  tendency 


1  Irenseus,  ii.  28.  3.     \decet  sup-  8  Irensens,  ii.  28.    7.    [absurdum 
plied  from  Grabe's  conjecture],                   supplied  from  Maesuet's  conjecture]. 

2  Ibid.  8  6. 


LECT.  xvi.  HIPPOLYTUS.  275 

to  Pantheism,  and  the  Christian  revelation  with  its  firm 
hold  on  the  belief  in  a  personal  God ;  and  the  method 
which  these  Fathers'  inaugurated  has  been  pursued  by 
their  ablest  successors  in  the  Catholic  Church  in  subsequent 
generations. 

The  fourth  Christian  writer  against  heresies  to  whom 
I  have  referred,  Hippolytus,  pursues  a  different  method 
from  the  other  three.  The  value  of  his  work  is  chiefly 
historical,  in  which  respect  it  contains  much  new  and 
interesting  information.  But  he  does  not  attempt  a 
philosophical  or  theological  refutation  of  the  various 
heresies  which  he  notices.  His  principal  object  is  to  show 
that  their  doctrines  are  borrowed  from  heathen  sources  ; 
and  he  seems  to  think  that  the  refutation  of  these  doc- 
trines is  sufficiently  accomplished  when  he  has  traced 
them  back  to  this  unchristian  origin,  and  shown  that 
theories  which  the  heretics  put  forth  as  of  Divine  inspiration 
are  really  stolen  from  the  inventions  of  heathen  men.1 
His  theological  controversy  with  the  heretics  is  limited  to 
an  exposition,  by  way  of  contrast,  of  the  true  doctrine 
concerning  God  the  Creator  of  all  things ;  concerning  the 
Logos  by  whom  the  world  was  made,  and  who  became 
man ;  and  concerning  the  free  will  and  future  destiny  of 
men.  The  last  portion  is  not  completed  in  the  work  as  it 
has  come  down  to  us,  which  ends  abruptly  in  the  middle 
of  a  sentence. 

1  Hippolytus,  Eef.  Har.  ix.  31. 


T  2 


INDEX. 


ABE 

ABEL,  evil  spirit  of  the  Cainites, 
p.  101 

Abraham,  said  to  have  written  Book 
of  Creation,  38 

Abrasax  or  Abraxas,  153 

Absolute  Existence,  problem  of,  11, 16 

Achamoth,  169,  184  &  jf. 

Adam  identified  with  Christ,  237 

Adam  Kadmon  of  the  Zohar,  37;  in 
theory  of  Simon  Magus,  87 

Adamites,  122 

JEons,  178 ;  how  used  in  N.T.  61 
&  ff-  >  ^7  Valentinus  and  Simon 
Magus,  62;  in  Valentinian  theory, 
168,  171  ;  same  as  Koots  of  Simon 
Magus,  86 ;  same  as  Diathesis  of 
Ptolemseus,  173 

Ahriman,  Zoroastrian  evil  spirit,  26 

Akiba,  Eabbi,  traditional  author  of 
Book  of  Creation,  38 

Alcibiades  of  Apamea,  234 

Alexander  the  Valentinian,  197 

Alexander  and  Hymenseus  in  N.  T.,  57 

Alexandria,  school  of,  261 

Amshaspands,  the  six,  of  the  Zoroas- 
trian system,  26 

Anaxagoras,  4,  21 ;  borrowed  from  by 
Basilides,  149 

Angels  of  Valentinus,  181 

Announcement,  the  Great,  of  Simon 
Magus,  88  &  ff. 

Annubion,  226  ' 

Antichrist,  Irenseus  on  the  name  of, 
249 

Antitactae,  123 

Antithesis  of  Marcion,  209  &  ff. 

Apocalypse,  see  John,  Eevelation  of 
Saint 


BAS 

Appion,  226 

Archelaus,  bp.  of  Caschar,  159 

Archon,  first  of  Basilides,  152,  155^ 

second  do.  154,  155 
Aristotle  on  the  '  Existence  of  Evil,' 

22 ;  use  of  word  '  wisdom,'  1 
Asceticism  of  Saturninus,  134 
Athenodorus,  226 
Aquila,  225,  226,  227 
Augustine  and  Valentinianism,  183 


"DALAAM  and  the  Nicolaitans,  73 

JD  Baptism,  for  the  dead,  116;  a 
Gnostic  initiatory  rite,  41 ;  Marcion's- 
rite,  217 

Barbelists,  242 

Barcabbas,  164 

Barcoph,  164 

Bardesanes,  139,  197 ;  his  teaching, 
139,  140  ;  his  hymns,  141 

Baruch,  Gnostic  book  of,  102 

Basilides,  144;  date  of,  145;  teaching 
of,  destroys  free-will,  14 ;  relation 
to  the  Kabbala,  42;  seed  of  the 
world,  148  ;  threefold  sonship,  150  ; 
account  of  Creation,  151  ;  Ogdoad 
and  first  Archon,  152  ;  Hebdomad, 
152,  154;  theory  of  Eedemption, 
154;  second  Archon,  154,  155; 
illumination  of  the  universe,  156 ; 
accepts  history  of  the  Gospels,  157  ; 
not  Docetic,  ib. ;  not  dualistic,  ib. ; 
his  theory  externally  allegorical, 
159  ;  internally  pantheistic,  ib. ; 
emanations,  160  ;  relation  to  Plato, 
161 ;  relation  to  the  Pythagoreans, 


278 


INDEX. 


BAU 

162 ;  Caulacau,  ib. ;  no  idea  of  Pro- 
vidence or  free-will,  1 65  ;  source  of 
his  teaching,  146  ;  first  principle, 
a  non-existent  deity,  ib. ;  a  non- 
existent world,  148 ;  borrows  from 
St.  John,  150 

Baur,  classification  of  Gnostic  sects  by, 
46  ;  quotes  Irenseus  unfairly  against 
St.  John,  177 
Beghards,  or  Brethren   of  the  Free 

Spirit,  122 
Bisexual  principle  of  Simon  Magus, 

89  ;  of  the  Naassenes,  97 
Buddhist  doctrine  of  Annihilation,  30 
Bunsen,  view  of  Simon  Magus,  83,  91 
Burton,  estimate  of  Simon  Magus,  91 


and  the  Cainites,  100,  101 

\J  Caius,  presbyter  of  Eome,  gives 
an  account  of  Cerinthus,  114 

Carpocrates,  117  &  ff. ',  on  Person  of 
Christ,  117  ;  licentiousness  of  his 
teaching,  120;  relation  to  Cerin- 
thus, 119;  his  son  Epiphanes,  121 

Carpocratians  adopt  title  Gnostic.  7, 
117;  their  teaching  on  the  Eesur- 
rection,  59  ;  their  treatment  of  the 
Gospel,  121 

Caulacau,  163 

Celbes,  102 

Cerdon,  203 

Cerinthus,  112  &  ff. ;  his  relation  to 
St.  John,  14,  74,  75  ;  to  St.  Paul, 
53;  to  Philo,  75,  114;  to  Carpo- 
crates, 119;  his  teaching,  74;  re- 
futed by  Gospel  of  St.  John,  116; 
germs  of  his  teaching  opposed  in 
Ep.  to  Col.  53  ;  his  Christology, 
115;  said  to  have  forged  the  Apoca- 
lypse, 114;  the  precursor  of  the 
Nazarenes  and  Ebionites,  123 

Christ,  Person  and  work  of,  recog- 
nised by  Gnosticism,  5  ;  errors  in 
relation  to  Person  of,  110 

Christian  elememt  in  Gnosticism, 
220 

Christology  of  Cerinthus,  115;  of 
Clem.  Horn.  237  ;  of  Sethites,  102 

Cipher,  supposed  derivation  of,  37 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  his  date,  8  ; 
contrasts  true  and  false  Gnosticism, 
8,  9  ;  his  charges  against  Basilides 
and  Valentinus,  14,  160;  his  tra- 
dition about  Ep.  to  the  Hebrews, 
61  ;  places  Apocalypse  before  Gos- 
pel of  St.  John,  71  ;  identifies  Ni- 


DUA 

colas  the  Deacon  as  founder  of  the 
Nicolaitans,  72 ;  his  account  of 
Epiphanes  and  his  book  '  On  Jus- 
tice,' 121  ;  the  Antitactse,  123 ; 
Tatian,  137,  &c. ;  Basilides,  145, 
&c. ;  preserves  fragments  of  writ- 
ings of  Valentinus,  200 ;  his  posi- 
tion, 261 ;  a  philosopher,  262 ;  his 
writings,  262  &  ff. 

Clement  of  Eome,  said  to  have  been 
ordained  by  St.  Peter,  221  ;  his 
letter  to  St.  James  in  the  Clem.  Horn. 
223 

Clementine  Homilies,  221 ;  their  ex- 
ternal history,  233  ;  their  Christo- 
logy, 237 

Colarbasus,  197 

Colossians,  Ep.  to,  alludes  to  Gnosti- 
cism, 53 

Conception,  see  Ennoia 

Confirmation,  266 

Constitutions,  Apostolical,  93 

Corinth,,  Epp.  to,  contain  first  allu- 
sions to  Gnosticism  in  N.T.,  48 

Creed  of  Tertullian,  252 


DAEKNESS,  Persian  evil  principle, 
87 

Decad  of  Valentinus,  174,  175 

Democritus,  21 

Demiurge,  lower  in  Gnostic  systems 
than  in  Philo,  19  ;  of  Ophites,  99 ; 
of  Valentinus,  186,  190;  of  Mar- 
cion,  209,  210,  214  &ff. 

'Depth'  of  Valentinus.  169,  173 

Devil  of  Valentinus,  190 

Diathesis,  2Eons  so  called  by  Ptole- 
mseus,  173 

Dionysius,  Bp.  of  Alexandria,  his 
account  of  Cerinthus,  114 

Docetism,  58,  111;  germs  of,  derived 
from  India,  32  ;  in  teaching  of  Si- 
mon Magus,  85 ;  in  teaching  of 
Marciou,  214;  the  earliest  form  of 
Gnosticism,  127;  referred  to  in  Ep. 
to  Ephes.  55 ;  in  Ep.  to  Heb.  60 ; 
opposed  by  St.  John,  76 

Dodecad  of  Valentinus,  175,  176 

Dogma  and  Christianity,  78 

Dorner,  estimate  of  Simon  Magus,  91 

Dositheus  and  Simon  Magus,  85 

Draco,  the  constellation,  99 

Dualism,  characteristic  of  the  Syrian 
Gnosis,  142 


IXDEX. 


279 


EBI 

EBION  the  heretic,  a  myth,  124 
Ebionism,  58,  111 

Ebionites,  123,  124,  236 ;  precursors 
of,  at  Corinth,  50 

Ebionite  Gospel,  126 

Egyptian  G-nosis,  144 

Eleatics,  3,  21 

Elkesaites,  236 

Elxai  or  Elchesai,  234 

Empedocles,  5,  21 

Encratites,  136,  142 

Ennoia  of  Simon  Magus,  82 ;  of 
Ophites,  98 

En  Soph  in  the  Zohar,  36 

Ephesiaus,  Epistle  to,  alludes  to 
Gnosticism,  51  &  ff. ;  on  the  In- 
carnation, 55 

'Ephesian  Letters,'  51  &/. 

Ephraim,  St.,  his  hymns  superseded 
by  those  of  Bardesanes,  142 

Epiphanes,  son  of  Carpocrates,  121. 

Epiphanius,  account  of  the  Ophites, 
98-100  ;  his  date  of  the  Apocalypse, 
71 ;  account  of  Cerinthus,  112  &/. ; 
baptism  for  the  dead,  116;  Satur- 
ninus,  132  &  ff. ;  Bardesanes,  138 
&  /. ;  the  Encratites,  142 ;  Basil- 
ides,  144  &ff. ;  Valentiiras  and  the 
Valentinians,  166  &  ff. ;  Maivion, 
204,  216  &  ff. ;  Elxai,  234  &  ff. ; 
Ebionites  and  Elkesaites,  234  &  ff. 

Esau,  a  hero,  100 

Essenes,  65,  234 

Euphrates,  one  of  the  founders  of  the 
Peratse,  102 

Eusebius,  account  of  Polycarp  •  and 
Marcion,  14;  date  of  Apocalypse, 
71;  of  Carpocrates,  118;  the 
Cainites,  120  ;  Jewish  Bishops  of 
Jerusalem,  125;  Saturninus  and 
Basilides,  129  &  ff. ;  Bardesanes, 
138  &ff.,  197;  account  of  Irenseus, 
239  &/. 

Evil,  Origin  of,  11,  18  ;  no  longer  sin, 
12  ;  in  Greek  philosophy,  20,  24  ; 
in  Eastern  philosophies,  24 


FALL,  the,  in  the  Ophite  theories, 
99 

Faustus,  story  of,  in  Clem.  Horn.  228. 
Fire,  the  primary  principle  of  Simon 

Magus,  86  &/. 

Fire-worship,  the  meaning  of,  87 
Flora,  letter  of  Ptolemseus  to,  197 
Franck,  on  the  Kabbala  and  Gnosti- 
cism, 42 


HEL 

Free-will  destroyed  by  Gnosticism,  12, 
&c. 


C\  ENTILE  Bishops   of    Jerusalem, 
\J     126 

Gieseler,  classification  of  Gnostic 
sects,  45 

Glaucias,  teacher  of  Basilides,  146 

Gnosis,  meaning  of  term  in  Plato,  1  ; 
in  LXX,  and  N.  T.  6,  7  ;  in  Clem. 
Alex.  262  ;  first  used  in  a  depre- 
ciatory sense,  49;  Syrian,  142; 
Egyptian  144 

Gnostes,  use  of,  in  LXX,  6 

Gnostic,  first  used,  7,  105,  117;  esti- 
mate of  Christianity,  9 ;  taught  a 
twofold  religion,  10  ;  acknowledge 
Christ  as  a  Redeemer,  18  ;  list  of, 
given  by  Irenseus,  242 ;  classification 
of  sects  by  Mosheim,  44  ;  Gieseler, 
45 ;  Neander,  ib. ;  Baur,  46  ;  Mat- 
ter, ib. 

Gnosticism,  distinctive  title  of  Chris- 
tian heretics,  3 ;  characteristics  of 
in  time  of  St.  Paul,  8,  53  ;  of  Clem. 
Alex.  8,  265,  267,  269;  regarded 
as  Antichristian  by  St.  John,  13; 
and  early  Fathers,  13;  two  schools 
of,  20  ;  sources  of,  31,  32 ;  its  rela- 
tion to  Materialism,  14;  alluded  to 
in  N.  T.,  6,  48  &  Jf! ;  prophecies 
of  in  N.  T.  64 ;  earliest  form  of, 
Docetic,  127 

God,  Personality  of,  destroyed  by 
Gnostics,  12 

God  of  the  Jews,  his  position  in  the 
Gnostic  theories,  19 

Gospels,  effect  of  the  Synoptic,  127  &/. 

Greek  philosophy,  idea  of  evil,  3  ;  of 
Redemption,  20 


HAM,.Sethite  account  of,  101 
Harmonius,  141 

Heathen  Mythologies  and  the  Ophites, 
104 

Hebdomad  of  Basilides,  152,  154 

Hebrews,  Gospel  of,  126 

Hebrews,  Epistle  to,  date  and  author, 
59  &  ff. ;  to  whom  addressed,  61 ; 
allusions  to  Gnosticism,  60 

Hegel,  147,  165;  similarity  to  the 
Kabbala,  35  ;  to  the  Ophite  theo- 
ries 107 

Helena,  see  Simon  Magus 


280 


INDEX. 


HER 

Heracleon,  197  ;  first  commentator  on 
the  Gospel  of  St.  John,  199 

Heraclitus,  3 ;  and  Simon  Magus,  87 

Hippolytus,  account  of  title  Gnostic, 
7  ;  JEons  first  used  by  Valentinus, 
62 ;  Nicolas  and  the  Nicolaitans, 
72 ;  Ophites,  73,  95  &  /. ;  Gospel 
of  St.  John,  74  ;  Simon  Magus,  83  ; 
the  '  Great  Announcement,'  85  & 
ff.  ;  analogy  between  Simon  and 
Heraclitus, "  87  ;  Peratse,  99;  the 
Ophite  Jesus,  110;  Cerinthus,  110 
&  ff. ;  Ebionites,  123;  Saturninus, 
129  ;  Basilides,  146  &  ff;  Valen- 
tinus, 170  &  ff.;  Elchesai,  231; 
the  book  of  Elchesai,  234  ;  his  date, 
235  ;  his  own  writings,  275 

Horus  of  Valentinus,  169,  180 

Hydroparastatse,  137 

Hyginus,  Bishop  of  Rome,  203 

Hymenseus,  51,  57,  111 


TALDABOTH,  98 

JL  Incarnation,  the,  and  Gnosticism, 
55,  58 

Indian  Religion,  29 ;  Emanation 
theory  of  origin  of  evil,  24 ;  rela- 
tion to  Gnosticism,  29 

Innatum,  meaning  of,  132 

Intellect,  male  principle  of  Simon 
Magus,  88 

Ionian  philosophy,  3,  20 

Irenseus,  account  of  St.  John  and  Ce- 
rinthus, 13  ;  description  of  Simon 
Magus  and  his  teaching,  40 ;  says 
Simon  used  Hebrew  words  at  Bap- 
tism, 42 ;  date  of  Apocalypse,  71 ; 
Nicolas  and  the  Nicolaitans,  72  ; 
Gospel  of  St.  John,  74 ;  account 
of  Simon  Magus,  82  &  ff. ;  Ophites, 
97  &  ff.;  Cerinthus,  110  &  ff. ; 
title  Gnostic,  118  ;  Carpocrates,  118 
&  ff.;  Carpocratians  and  Gospel, 
122;  Ebionites,  123;  Ebionite 
Gospel  of  St.  Matthew,  126  ;  Satur- 
ninus, 129;  says,  Basilides  is  Do- 
cetic,  157;  Valentinus,  166  &  /!; 
Marcion,  203  &  ff. ;  his  own  wri- 
tings, 239  &  ff. ;  list  of  Gnostics, 
242;  the  'Presbyter'  of,  247 


TAMES,    St.,    speech    of   in    Clem. 
U      Horn.  223 

Jerome,  date  of  Apocalypse,  71 ;  his 
date  of  Basilides,  145 


MAN 

Jerusalem,  Bishops  of,  126 

Jesus  of  the  Valentinians,  181 

John,  St.  and  Cerinthus,  14,  75 ;  the 
Revelation,  71,  &  ff.,  96,  105  &/.; 
date,  71  ;  said  to  have  been  forged 
by  Cerinthus,  114;  Gospel,  74  & 
ff. ;  opposed  to  Gnosticism,  74 ;  re- 
futes Cerinthus,  116;  borrowed 
from  by  Basilides,  150;  by  Valen- 
tinus, 177 ;  earliest  commentary 
on,  199 ;  Epistles  opposed  to  Doce- 
tism,  76 

Judas  Iscariot  in  Cainite  theory,  101 ; 
Gospel  of,  101 

Jude,  St.,  Epistle  of,  date,  61  &  ff. ; 
relation  to  2nd  Epistle  of  St.  Peter, 
69 

'  Just '  and  '  Justice '  in  Marcion, 
meaning  of,  210 

Justin  the  Gnostic,  102 

Justin  Martyr,  his  account  of  Simon 
Magus,  82  &ff. 


KABBALA,  meaning  of  the  word, 
33  ;  the  Jewish  metaphysics,  33  ; 
similarity  to  Spinoza  and  Hegel,  35 ; 
its  teaching,  35  &  ff. ;  date  and 
author,  38  and/. ;  relation  to  Gnos- 
ticism, ib. ;  to  Persian  philosophy, 
39  ;  to  Simon  Magus,  40,  87 ;  to 
Basilides  and  Valentinus,  42 ;  to 
Ophite  theory,  97  ;  possibly  alluded 
to  by  St.  Paul,  56,  57 
Korah,  a  Cainite  hero,  100 


T  ARDNER    doubts    existence    of 

Jj     Cainites,  100 

'  Laws  of  Countries,'  Book  of  the,  141 

Leucippus,  21 

Light,  the  Persian  good  principle,  87 

Logos,  a  designation  of  Christ,  75 ; 
in  Philo,  1 7  ;  Simon  Magus  identi- 
fies with  himself,  81  &/. ;  Ophites 
identify  with  serpent,  99  ;  in  Valen- 
tinian  theory,  171,  181 

Luke,  St.,  Gospel  of,  mutilated  by 
Marcion,  206  &/. 


MAN,  personality  of,  destroyed  by 
Gnosticism.  12 ;  spiritual  in 
Kabbala,  37;  in  Ophite  theories,  97; 
ideal  of  Valentinus,  172  &  ff. ; 
three  classes  of,  in  Valentinian 
theory,  191 ;  creation  of,  ib. 


INDEX. 


281 


MAR 

Marcion,  203  &  ff. ;  and  Polycarp,  14 ; 
prohibits  marriage,  65  ;  refuted  by 
Bardesanes,  139;  higher  criticism, 
206,  &c. ;  his  canon,  ib. ;  Antithesis, 
209 ;  Demiurge,  209,  &c. ;  two 
Eedeemers,  214;  Docetic,  ib.  •  Pa- 
tripassian,  216;  his  Baptism,  217; 
meaning  of  his  phrase  'just,'  210; 
how  treated  by  Tertullian,  211 

Marcosians,  198  ;  initiatory  rites,  41 ; 
refuted  by  Irenseus,  242 

Marcus,  197,  198 

Materialism  and  Gnosticism,  14 

Matter's  classification  of  Gnostic  sects, 
46 

Matthew,  St.,  Ebionite  Gospel  of, 
126 

Matthias,  St.,  Basilides'  account  of 
secret  teaching  given  to,  146 

Menander,  90,  93  &  /. ;  professes  to 
be  a  Christ,  130;  common  points 
with  Saturninus,  129 ;  parent  of 
Syrian  and  Egyptian  Gnosticism, 
ib. 

Menandrians  soon  extinct,  94 

Monogenes  of  Valentinus.     See  Nous. 

Mosaic  account  of  Creation  and  Fall, 
resemblance  of  Persian  Cosmogony 
to,  27 

Moses  de  Leon,  reputed  by  some  to 
be  the  author  of  Zohar,  39 

Mosheim,  classification  of  Gnostic 
sects,  44  ;  estimate  of  Simon  Magus, 
91 


NAASSENES,  96  &/. ;  assume  title 
Gnostic,  105;  quote  St.  Paul, 
ib. 

Nazarenes,  124 

Neander  on  Gnosticism,  10  ;  on  rela- 
tion of  God  to  the  Demiurge,  135 ; 
classification  of  Gnostic  sects,  45 ; 
estimate  of  Simon  Magus,  91 

Neoplatonism  of  Plotinus,  147 ;  of 
Proclus,  ib. 

New  Testament,  first  allusions  to 
Gnosticism,  48. 

Nicetas,  225  &  ff. 

Nicolaitans,  germ  of  heresy  dis- 
cerned by  St.  Paul,  66;  referred 
to  by  St.  John,  72  ;  by  St.  Jude,  70 

Nicolas,  72 

Noah,  the  Sethite  spiritual  man,  101 

Noetus,  217 

Non-existent  principle  and  world  of 
Basilides,  146  &  ff.,  161 


PET 

Nous  of  Valentinus,  170,   175,   177, 
181 


OGDOAD  of  Basilides,  152;  of  Va- 
lentinus, 170 

Old  Testament,  Marcion's  treatment 
of,  209  &  ff. 

Ophites,  95  &  ff. ;  date  104  &  ff. ',  ;  of 
Jewish  origin,  103;  first  assume 
title  Gnostic,  7 ;  alluded  to  in 
Apocalypse,  73  ;  their  Trinity,  98 ; 
Ennoia,  ib. ;  idea  of  Eedemption, 
103;  relation  of  their  system  to 
pantheism,  107 

Origen  on  the  commentary  of  Hera- 
clion,  199 

Orniuzd,  the  good  spirit  of  Zoroaster, 
26 

Ossenes,  234 


,  261 

Pantheism  and  Ophite  theory, 
107 

Paradise  of  Ophites,  99 

Parchor,  164 

Parsism  and  Ophite  theory,  104 

Passions,  human,  in  theory  of  Basi- 
lides, 158 

Patripassianism  of  Marcion,  216 

Paul,  St.,  use  of  Gnosis,  6  &  / ; 
combats  Gnosticism,  8,  9,  54 ;  en- 
counter with  Simon  Magus,  92 ; 
quoted  by  Naassenes,  105  ;  by  Va- 
lentinians,  182;  attacked  by  Clem. 
Horn.  228 ;  his  Epp.  in  the  Canon 
of  Marcion,  206 

Pella,  Church  at,  125 

Peratse,  96,  102 

Peripatetics,  4 

Persian  religion,  dualistic,  24 ;  cos- 
mogony resembles  Mosaic  narrative, 
27 ;  contrast  to  Indian,  29  ;  influ- 
ence on  the  Kabbala,  39  ;  on  Simon 
Magus,  87  ;  on  Syrian  Gnosticism, 
133  ;  its  sacred  books  destroyed  by 
Alexander,  28 

Person  of  Christ,  errors  in  relation  to, 
110 

Personality  of  God  and  man  destroyed 
by  Gnosticism,  12 

Peter,  St.,  use  of  Gnosis,  6 ;  alludes 
to  the  Gnostic  usage  of  St.  Paul's 
Epp.  59  ;  prophecies  of  Gnosticism, 
66  &  ff. ;  relation  of  2nd  Ep.  to  Ep. 
of  St.  Jude,  69 ;  meeting  with 


282 


INDEX. 


PHI 

Simon  Magus,  92,  95;  Ep.  to  James 
in  Clem.  Horn.  223 ;  said  by  Clem. 
Horn,  to  have  administered  the 
Eucharist  with  bread  and  salt,  237 

Philetus,  51,  57,  111 

Philo,  embodies  germs  of  Gnosticism, 
2;  Logos  and  Divine  powers,  17, 
18;  interpretation  of  Old  Testa- 
ment, 16 

Philosophy,  Greek.     See  Greek 

Pistis  Sophia,  200 

Plato,  use  of  Gnosis,  1 ;  problem  of 
the  Absolute,  16;  of  the  origin  of 
evil,  21  ;  relation  to  Philo,  16,  &c. ; 
to  Basilides,  161 

Pleroma,  178,  179;  meaning  of,  inN. 
T.,  51,  55 

Plotinus,  147 

Polycarp  and  Marcion,  14;  anecdote 
about  Cerinthus,  112 

Power,  one  of  the  titles  claimed  by 
Simon  Magus,  80 

'Power?,'  Divine,  of  Philo,  17 

Prsescriptio,  meaning  of,  in  Tertullian, 
251 

Praxeas,  217 

Prodicus,  122 

Prunikos  of  Ophites,  98  ;  meaning  of, 
106 

Ptolemseus,  177  ;  letter  to  Flora,  197 

Pythagoreans,  21 


T)EDEEMER,  Gnostic,  higher  than 

Xt     Creator,  19 

Eedemption,    distinctive    feature    of 

Gnostic  philosophy,  3,  5  ;  Gnostic 

idea  of,  18  ;  in  Ophite  theory,  103  ; 

in    theory   of    Basilides,    154;    of 

Valentinus,  179 
Eesurrection,  the,  and  Gnosticism,  50, 

58&J. 

Eevelation.     See  St.  John. 
Eomans,   Ep.   to,   possibly  refers   to 

Gnosticism,  51 
Eome,  Bp.  of,  subordinate  to  Bp.  of 

Jerusalem  in  Clem.  Horn.  233 
'Eoots '  of  Simon  Magus,  86,  178 


SALT,  held  sacred  by  Elxai,  237; 
used  for  Eucharist  by  St.  Peter 
in  Clem.  Horn.,  ib. 
Samaritan   estimate    of    Simon    and 

Helena,  91 
Sampsseans,  236 
Satan,  depths  of,  73 


SYR 

Saturninus,  summary  of  doctrine  given 
by  Irenseus,  131 ;  his  Cosmogony, 
130;  his Christology,  131  ;  relation 
to  Menander,  129;  borrows  from 
Persian  philosophy,  133  ;  asceticism, 
134  ;  prohibits  marriage,  65,  134 

Schelling,  147 

Secundus,  197 

Seed  of  the  World  in  Basilides'  sys- 
tem, 148 

Sephir  Yetzirah,  35  ;  date  and  au- 
thor, 38  &/. 

Sephiroth  in  the  Zohar,  36,  37 

Serpent,  veneration  of,  96 ;  various 
doctrines  of,  99  &  /  ;  the  Brazen, 
99 

Seth,  Christ  of  the  Sethites,  102 

Sethi tes,  96,  101 

Shelley,  4 

Sichem,  see  Sychar 

Silence,  primary  power  of  Simon  Ma- 
gus, 86,  88;  of  Valentinus,  170, 
173 

Simon  ben  Jochai,  traditional  author 
of  Zohar,  38 

Simon  Magus,  91  &  ff. ;  and  Dositheus, 
85 ;  relation  to  the  Kabbala,  40, 
87  ;  to  Heraclitus,  87  ;  a  Samari- 
tan, 79  &  ff. ;  sources  of  his  teach- 
ing, 80  &  /.,  84  ;  a  false  Christ, 
81,  82,  90;  Ennoia.  82;  Eoots,  86, 
87  ;  '  Great  Announcement,'  85,  88  ; 
primary  principle,  Fire  or  Silence, 
86,  88  ;  male  and  female  principles, 
88 ;  bisexual  power,  89  ;  regarded 
as  God  by  Samaritans,  91 ;  Docetic, 
85  ;  his  Cosmogony,  54  ;  account  of 
him  by  Irenseus  and  Just.  Mart. 
82  &  ff. ;  his  doctrine  explained  by 
Bunsen,  83 ;  different  estimates  of, 
91 ;  accounts  of  his  death,  92  &  /. ; 
perhaps  alluded  to  in  N.T.  66 ;  ac- 
count of  him  in  Clem.  Horn.  225 ; 
uniting  with  St.  Peter,  95  ;  his  po- 
sition among  Gnostic  heretics,  95  ; 
supposed  statue  to,  91  &/. 

Simonians  and  the  Eesurrection,  59 

Sophia  Achamoth,  169,  180, 184  &jf.; 
among  Ophites,  98  ;  Prunikos,  106 ; 
among  Sethites,  101 

Spinoza  and  the  Kabbala,  35 

Stoics,  the,  4,  23 

Sychar,  possibly  city  where  Philip 
preached,  79 

Syrian  Gnosis,  dualistic,  142 


INDEX. 


283 


TAT 

TATIAN,  136 
Tertullian,  his  heretic  Ebion,  125; 
makes  Basilides  Docetic,  157:  his 
accounts  of  Valentinus,  166,  &c. ; 
of  Marcion,  203,  &c. ;  use  of  tra- 
dition, 253  ;  contrast  with  Irenseus, 
250,  260  ;  his  use  of  '  Prsescriptio/ 
251  ;  his  writings,  251  &  ff. 

Tetrads  of  Valentinus,  171 

Theodotus,  197 

Theodotion's  translation  of  O.T.,  240 

Therapeutae,  31  &/. 

Thought,  female  principle   of  Simon 
Magus,  89 

Timothy,  Epp.  to,  allude  to  Gnosticism, 
56,  64,  66  ;  their  date,  56 

Titus,  Ep.  to,  combats  Gnosticism,  57 


TTNSPEAKABLE,  the,    of   Valen- 
U     tinus,  170 


TALENTINUS,  166;  relation  to 
'  the  Kabbala,  42,  201 ;  ^Eons, 
62,  86,  178;  Pleroma,  178;  two 


ZOR 

Christs,  181 ;  borrows  from  St. 
John,  177  ;  and  St.  Paul,  181 ;  Og- 
doad,  170  ;  Orders  of  JEous,  171  ; 
Tetrads,  ib.;  ideal  man,  173;  De- 
cad,  174&/.;  Dodecad,  176;  idea 
of  Eedemption,  179,  184  &  ff. ; 
three  classes  of  men,  191  ;  Christo- 
logy,  192  &  ff.;  philosophy,  194 
&  ff. ;  his  theory  pantheistic,  201  ; 
refuted  by  Irenaeus,  167,  242 ;  re- 
lation to  Augustine,  183;  charged 
by  Clem.  Alex,  with  destroying 
free-will,  14 


ISDOM'  of  God,  168 


7ACCHJEUS    said    to    be    Bp.    of 
Ll     Csesarea  by  Clem.  Horn.  227 
Zohar,  35,  36 ;  author  and  date,  38, 

39 
Zoroaster,  date,  25 ;  his  system,  26 ; 

influenced  by  Judaism,  28 


unn   BSITT 


INDEX 


PASSAGES  IN  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  AND  LXX. 


GENESIS 

ECCLESIASTES 

PAGE 

PAGE 

1.3       .        .        .        .137 

,  148 

1.  1-10      .... 

168 

I  26  

131 

II.  26  (LXX.) 

6 

XXIV.  1-18      . 

168 

NUMBERS 

ISAIAH 

XXV.  1,  2     . 

72 

XXXI.  16          .... 

72 

VII.  14 
XL  2  (LXX.)    . 

245 
6 

XXVIII.  10  . 

163 

1  SAMUEL 

XL.  13,  14         ... 

212 

XXVIII.  3,  9  (LXX.)    . 

6 

DANIEL 

2  KINGS 

XII.  3       .... 

35 

XXI.  6  (LXX.) 

.     6 

MALACHI 

JOB 

I.  10,  11 

246 

XXVIII  

168 

WISDOM  (LXX.) 

PSALMS 

11.13 

6 

VII.  17  

6 

CXVIII.  (CXIX.)  66  (LXX.) 

6 

VII.  22-30 

168 

XXIII.  (XXIV.)  1  (LXX.)  . 

179 

VIII.  1-9      .... 

168 

IX.  9-11 

168 

X.  10     

6 

PJROVERBS 

XIV.  22     .... 

6 

VIII  

168 

VIII.  12  (LXX.)        .        .            6 
IX.  1     .        .        .        .      184,  169 

ECCLESIASTICUS  (LXX.) 

XXX.  3  (Vat.  XXIV.  26),  (LXX.)  6 

XXXVI.  17  .        .        .      « 

*,  178 

INDEX 


PASSAGES  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


ALLUDED    TO    OR   EXPLAINED. 


ST.  MATTHEW 


ACTS— 


VII.  7 

XII.  48 


I.  77  . 

III.  1     . 

IV.  31 
VIL  21-35 
XIII.  28     . 
XIII.  29 
XVI.  17     . 


1.3        . 

I.  9    .         . 
I.  14      . 
IV.  5 
IV.  25  . 
VII.  48,  49 
XIV.  6  . 
XIX.  26     . 

XIX.  35 

XX.  31       . 

XXI.  1 


ST.  LUKE 


ST.  JOHN 


ff. 


VIII.  5,  9,  10 
VIII.  10 


ACTS 


PAGE 

251 

XV.  2  ... 

PAGE 

112 

.     215 

XVI.  6  . 

.     105 

XVIII.  23 

105 

XIX.  19         ... 

.       51 

XXI,  28     .. 

112 

6 

XXIV.  .5 

.     124 

207,  215 

207,  215 
.     207 

KOMANS 

207 

II.  16         ... 

206 

.     207 

III.  20  . 

121,  211 

207 

V.  14          ... 

155 

V.  20     . 

.     211 

VI.  4           ... 

59 

VII.  12- 

.     211 

.       74 

VIII.  3       ... 

211 

148 

VIII   19   2l? 

155 

.                      J.TTO 

.      74 

VIII.  33     ... 

155 

79 

XI.  33  . 

.     213 

..      81 

XL  36        . 

181 

124 

XVI.  17-19  . 

.       51 

.     178 

XVI.  25     ... 

206 

102 

77 

116 

i  CORINTHIANS 

.     110 

12                           . 

51 

I.  5    . 

.     6,  263 

II.  6      . 

51 

II.  11          .         .         i 

213 

.    79,  80 

II.  14.  15        .         . 

10 

41 

III.  16        ... 

48 

INDEX. 


287 


1  CORINTHIANS—  continued. 

COLOSSIANS  —  continued. 

\ 

'AGE 

PAGK 

VI.  15   

248 

III.  3-5 

55 

VIII.  1                .         .        7,  49 

,  72 

IV.  7     . 

53 

VIII.  2           .... 

49 

XII.  8        .... 

6 

XIII.  8,  10    . 
XV.            ...           50, 

50 
248 

1  THESSALONIANS 

XV.  22  

137 

IV.  9 

9 

XV   '20 

V.  23     . 

248 

J\*  V  .    &\J            *                •                •                • 

XV.  50           .... 

248 

1  TIMOTHY 

2  CORINTHIANS 

I.  4    . 

56 

TV    fi 

I.  17      . 

178 

JLV  •  0             •           •           •           • 

X  5       

6 

I.  19,  20     . 

57 

XI.  6          .... 

50 

IV.  1      . 

.      70 

XII.  9   

247 

IV.  1-3      . 

64 

VI.  4     . 

252 

VI.  20        ...       7, 

56,  263 

GALATIANS 

I.  4    .         . 

62 

2  TIMOTHY 

II.  2       
II.  8  
III.  24  

112 
246 
211 

II.  16-18 
II.  18 
III.  1     .... 

.       57 
59 

.      70 

•     III.  1-7      . 

65,  66 

EPHESIANS 

TITUS 

I.  10.         .         .         .         181, 

249 

101 

i  f\r 

I.  14 

57 

.  zi       . 
I.  23  . 

100 
52 

III.  9          .... 

57 

n9 

fti 

III.  10  . 

252 

.  z      . 
III.  19        .... 

01 

51 

IV.  13  

52 

IV.  14  

52 

HEBREWS 

VI.  21   

53 

I.  1,  2 

60 

I.  2 

62 

II.  14,  16,  17      . 

60,  61 

PHILIPPIANS 

XI.  3     . 

.       62 

III.  18        .         ..." 

6 

IV.  3     

221 

2  ST.  PETER 

I.  5,  6 

6 

COLOSSIANS 

II.  1      . 

69 

II.  1,  2       . 

67 

I.  16,  17     . 

54 

II.  10,  12       ... 

.       67 

I   18   19 

55 

II.  13,  15  . 

67 

II.  6-9        .... 

8 

II.  15    . 

.       71 

II.  8      

54 

II.  18,  19  . 

67 

II  9           .         .         .         .55, 

181 

III.  2     .... 

70 

II  12    

59 

III.  3         .... 

69 

II.  18 

54 

III.  16  . 

.       59 

II.  20-23       .... 

55 

III.  18       .... 

6 

288 


INDEX. 


I.  1  3    . 

1  ST.  JOHN 

PAGE 

'  .      76 

4 

ST.  JUDE 

PAGE 
fiQ 

II.  22 

14,  77,  78 

11 

71 

IV.  1-3 

76 

17,  18   . 

70 

IV.  2 
IV.  3     . 

112 
.                               78 

IV.  15 
V.  6       . 

77 
77 

nfi 

EEVELATION 

*79     TO 

7 

2  ST.  JOHN 

77 

II.  H    . 
II.  14,  15 
II.  15    . 
II.  24 
XII.  9  . 

.      71 
72 
.      72 
.     73,  96,  105 
106 

LONDON  :     PRINTED    BY 

SrOTTISWOODE    AND    CO.,    NEW-STREET    SQUARB 
AND     PARLIAMENT     STREET 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 

University  of  California  Library 

or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
Bldg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 
2- month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 

(510)642-6753 
1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books 

to  NRLF 
Renewals    and    recharges    may    be    made    4    days 

prior  to  due  date 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


APR     1  1996 


R 


20,000  (4/94) 


VC  42724 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


